^% 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


k 


/. 


/./  'M 


<  ^ 


^M^ 


:/. 


%0 


i/.. 


^ 


1.0 


II  1.1 

11.25 


UilM   125 


6" 


U    1 1.6 


V] 


/ 


'/ 


w 


Hiotographic 

^Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


%. 


V 


kS 


i 


^1 


'^ 


"^^ 


•^^^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 


D 


D 


D 
D 


n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


D 


Couverture  endommagde 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurie  et/ou  pelliculde 


I      I    Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


I      I    Colouv-ed  maps/ 


Cartes  g6ographiques  en  couleur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I     1    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relid  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

Lareliure  serr6e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsqi"?  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6td  filmdes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commenteires  supplimentaires; 


Thi 
tot 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu6s  ci-dessous. 


I      I    Coloured  pages/ 


v/ 


D 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 


□    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restauries  et/ou  pelliculdes 


Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d^colories,  tachetdes  ou  piqu6es 


Th« 
pea 
of 
fiM 


Orif 
b«( 
th«i 
sioi 
othi 
firsi 
sior 
ori 


□Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ddtachdes 

HShowthrough/ 
Transparence 


Transpar 

Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Qualit^  indgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppldmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


The 
sha 
TIN 
whi 

Mai 

diffi 
enti 
bagi 
righ 
raqi 
mat 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  peiure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  film6es  d  nouveau  de  facon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


30X 


X 


12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


"^^^i^^'s 


The  copy  filmed  h«r«  has  b««n  reproduead  thank* 
to  the  ganaroaity  of: 


L'axamplaira  filmi  fut  raproduit  grSca  d  la 
g^niroaitd  da: 


University  of  Calgary 


University  of  Calgary 


Tha  imagaa  appearing  hare  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specif icationa. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  iliuatratad  imprea- 
sion.  or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copiee  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  iliuatratad  impree- 
sion.  and  ending  on  the  iaat  page  with  a  printed 
or  iliuatratad  impreaaion. 


The  iaat  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  ▼  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Lea  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
de  la  nattet*  de  l'axamplaira  film«,  at  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmage. 

Lea  axemplairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvartura  an 
papier  eat  imprimte  sont  film6s  an  commandant 
par  le  premier  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  par  la 
darnlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  la  caa.  Tous  les  autres  exemplairas 
originaux  sont  filmte  an  commenqant  par  la 
pramlAra  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impreasion  ou  d'illustration  at  en  tarminant  par 
la  darniire  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaltra  sur  la 
darnlAre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  la  symbole  -^  signifie  "A  SUIV^E",  le 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Mapa,  platea.  charts,  etc..  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Thoaa  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  expoaure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  aa  many  framea  aa 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illuatrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartas,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmte  A  des  taux  da  rMuction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
raproduit  an  un  seul  cliche,  il  est  fiirn^  d  partir 
de  Tangle  sup^rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite. 
et  de  haut  an  bas.  an  prenant  le  nombre 
d'imagea  nAcessaire.  Las  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mMhode. 


1  2  3 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

■n 


{ 


p'2X!^->- 


* 


I    ' 


CORRESPONDENCE 


'Vn 


BETWEEN 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADA»iS,  ESQUIRE 


.     I 

I 
I 


FRESIDEilT  or  THE  VIIITED  iTATEl, 


AND 


SEVERAL  CITIZENS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 


CONCERNING    THE   CHARGE 


OP  A  DESIGN   TO  DISSOLVE  THE  UNION 


ALLEGED  TO  HAVE   EXISTED  IN  THAT  STATE. 


Ronton: 

PRESS   OF   Tin:   BOSTON    DAILY  ADVERTISER, 

W.  L.  Lowi),  I'rintcr,  No,  8  Consrcsj-strool. 

MUCCCIXIX. 


I 


^  ■' 


~-^       <.  -.<t(y. 


*■■ 


(     :' 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


Tlic  National  Intelligencer  of  the  21st  of  October  last,  con- 
tains a  statement  made  by  tlie  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  published  by  Ijis  authority,  in  which  be  denounces  certain 
citizens  of  3Iassacluisetts,  as  having  been  engaged  in  a  design 
to  produce  a  dissolution  of  tiie  Union,  and  the  establishnient  of 
a  separate  Confederation.  As  no  individual  was  named  in  that 
connnuiiication,  a  few  citizens  of  Boston  and  its  vicinity,  wlio 
supposed  that  tlay  or  their  friends  might  be  considered  by  the 
public,  if  not  intended  l)y  iNIr  Adams,  to  be  implicated  as  par- 
ties to  the  alleged  consi)iracy,  thought  proper  to  address  to  liim 
a  letter  dated  on  the  2Gtli  of  November,  asking  for  such  a  spe- 
cification of  tlu!  charge  and  of  the  evidence  as  migiit  tend  to 
remove  suspicion  from  the  innocent,  and  to  expose  tiie  guilty,  if 
any  such  there  were.  To  this  letter  they  received  a  rejjly  iVom 
INlr  Adams,  dated  on  the  oOth  of  December,  in  which  he  de- 
clines to  make  the  explanation  requested  of  bini,  and  gives  his 
reasoiis  for  that  refusal. 

'J'liis  correspomU'nce,  together  with  the  original  communica- 
tion ill  the  National  Intelligencer,  is  now  presented  to  the  pub- 
lic, accompanied  by  an  appeal  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  in  behalf  of  those  who  may  be  considered  as  implicated 
in  diis  charg<'. 

It  the  result  should  be,  either  to  fix  a  stigma  on  any  citizens 
of  Massachusetts,  or  on  the  other  hand  to  exhibit  3Ir  Adams 
as  till'  aiitiior  of  an  unfounded  and  calumnious  charge,  those 
who  have  made  this  publication  will  have  the  consolation  of  re- 
/l(!cting  that  it  is  not  they  who  b(>gan  this  controversy,  and  that 
tbe\  ari>  not  answerable  for  its  ri'sult.  That  result  they  cheer- 
iully  leave  to  an  impartial  and  discerning  public  ;  feeling  assur- 
ed that  the  most  thorough  investigation  will  servo  only  more 
fully  to  pro\e  the  fiitility  of  the  accusation. 


\^ 


!»■ 


'  .\ 


II 


FROM  THE  NATIO.XAL  LMELLIGENCER  OF  OCT.  2J,  1828. 


■i 


The  publication  of  a  letter  from  Mr  JcflfiTson  to 
Mr  Giles,  dated  the  2oth  of  December,  182.3,  con- 
cerning a  communication  made  by  Mr  Adams  to  Mr 
Jefferson,  in  relation  to  the  embargo  of  1807,  renders 
neccssnvy  the  following  statement,  which  we  are  au- 
thorized by  IMr  Adams  to  make. 

The  indistinctness  of  the  recollections  of  Mr  Jeffer- 
son, of  which  his  letter  itself  feelingly  complains,  has 
blended  together  three  distinct  ])eriods  of  time,  and 
the  information,  which  he  did  receive  from  Mr  Adams, 
with  events  which  afterwards  occurnd,  and  of  which 
Mr  Adams  could  not  have  informed  him.     It  fortu- 
nately hai)pens  that  this  error  is  apparent  on  the  face 
of  the  letter  itself.     It  says,  '  Mr  Adams  called  on  me 
pending  the  embargo,  and  while  endeavor-  '.vere  mak- 
ing to  obtain  its  repeal.'     He  afterwards  sa)  ■>,  that,  at 
this  interview^  Mr  Adams,  among  other  things,  told 
Inni  that  '  he  had  information,  of  the  most  unquestion- 
able certainty,    that  certain  citizens  of  the  Eastern 
States,  (I  think  he  named  Massachusetts  particularly) 
were  in  negotiation  with  agents  of  the  British  govern- 
ment, the  object  of  wliich  was  an  agreement  that  the 


i^? 


'S-Si, 


f 


J 


It 


New-Efif^lnnd  Statos  should  take  no  further  part  in  the 
war  then  iiohiL,^  un,^  Lc. 

The  cmbiirgo  was  cnacti^d  on  the  22d  of  December, 
1007,  and  re])eal(>d  by  the  non-intereourst;  act  on  tlio 
1st  of  Mareh,  ICOO.  The  war  was  deehued  in  June, 
1812. 

In  August,  1 809,  Mr  Adams  embarked  for  Russia, 
nearly  three  years  before  the  Declaration  of  War,  and 
did  not  return  to  the  United  States  till  August,  1817, 
nearly  three  years  after  the  conclusion  of  the  |)eace. 

]Mr  JMadisou  m  as  inaugjuated  President  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  'It h  of  March,  1809. 

It  was  impossible,  tlierefon,  that  Mr  Adams  could 
have  civen  auv  infornr.uiou  to  Mr  Jerferson,  of  uegoti- 
atioiis  by  citizens  of  Massachusetts  with  Uritish  agents, 
dnr'niii  the  var,  or  having  relation  to  it.  Mr  Adams 
never  had  kno\A  led^c  of  any  such  neirotiations. 

Thi!  interview,  to  which  Mr  JeffiMson  alludes,  took 
])lace  on  the  l.jth  of  IMarch,  1808,  pending  tlu;  embar- 
go ;  but,  at  the  session  of  Congress  bcfor(>  the  substitu- 
tion for  it  of  the  non-intercourse  act.  The  information, 
given  by  JMr  Adams  to  Mr  Jefferson,  had  only  an  indi- 
rect reference  even  to  the  embargo,  and  nom;  to  any 
endeavors  for  obtaining  its  repeal-  It  was  the  substance 
of  a  letter  from  the  (Jovernor  of  Nova  Scotia,  to  a  \)VV' 
son  in  the  Huxio  of  IMassachusetts,  written  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1807,  and  befon^  the  existence  of  the  embargo  ; 
which  letter  Mr  Adams  had  seen.  It  had  been  shown 
to  him  without  any  injunction  of  scM-rccy,  and  lie  b(^- 
trayed  no  confidence  in  comnumic:jting  its  purport  to 
Mr  Jefferson.  Its  object  was  to  countenances  and  ac- 
eredit  a  calumny  then  extensively  prevailing,  among 


■A 


•J 


r 


■A 


\ 


the  enemies  of  Mr  J.  and  the  opponents  of  his 
Administration,  that  he  and  liis  measures  wore  subser- 
vient to  France  ;  and  it  aUcged  tiiat  the  Dritisli  <;ov- 
ernment  were  informed  of  a  plan,  determiiu'(l||iipou  hy 
France,  to  effect  the  con(juest  of  tlie  British  provinces 
on  this  Continent,  and  a  revohition  in  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  as  means  to  which  tliey  were 
first  to  produce  war  between  the  United  States  and 
Enghuid.  From  the  fact  that  the  Governor  of  Nova 
Scotia  had  written  such  a  letter  to  an  individual  in 
Massachusetts,  ccnmected  with  other  facts,  and  with 
the  movements  of  the  party  then  predominant  in  that 
State,  Mr  Adams  and  Mr  Jefferson  drew  their  infer- 
ences, which  subse(iuent  events  doubtless  confirmed  : 
but  which  inferences  neitlnu-  Mr  Jefferson  nor  Mr 
Adams  then  communicated  to  each  other.  This  was 
the  only  confidential  interview  which,  dining  \\iv.  ad- 
ministration of  Mr  Jefferson,  took  place  between  him 
and  Mr  Adams.  It  took  place  first  at  the  re(|uest  of 
Mr  Wilson  Carey  Nicholas,  then  a  member  of  the 
House  of  U(!presentatives  of  the  United  States,  a  con- 
fidential friend  of  Mr  Jefferson  ;  next,  of  Mr  Robin- 
son, then  a  senator  from  Vermont ;  and,  lastly,  of  Mr 
Giles,  then  a  senator  from  \  irginia — which  rc(|U('st  is 
the  only  intervention  of  JNIr  CJiles  ever  known  to  INIr 
Adams,  between  him  and  jNIr  Jefferson.  It  is  therefore 
not  surprising,  that  no  such  intervention  occurred  to 
the  recollection  of  Mr  Jefferson,  in  December,  182.5. 

This  interview  was  in  INlaich,  1808.  In  IMay,  of  the 
same  year,  Mr  Adams  resigned  his  seat  in  the  senate 
of  the  United  States. 


f 


) 


« 

At  the  next  session  of  Conj^rcss,  which  commenced 
in  Nov(!inber,  1808,  Mr  Adams  wns  a  private  cjtizen, 
rcsidiiif;  at  Boston.  The  embarf!;o  was  still  in  force  ; 
operating  with  extreme  pressure  upon  tiie  interests  of 
the  people,  and  was  wielded  as  a  most  eflective  instru- 
ment by  the  party  prcivailing  in  the  State,  against  the 
administration  of  Mr  Jcfl'erson.  The  ])eople  were 
constantly  instigated  to  forcible  resistance  against  it ; 
and  juries  after  juries  ac(juitted  the  violators  of  it,  upon 
the  ground  that  it  was  luiconstitutional,  assumed  in  the 
face  of  a  solemn  decision  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
United  States.  A  separation  of  the  Union  was  o[)('nly 
stim*<lated  in  the  public  prints,  and  a  Convention  of 
Delegates  of  the  New  England  States,  to  meet  at  New 
Haven  was  intended  and  proi)osL'd. 

Mr  Giles,  and  several  other  members  of  Congress, 
during  this  session,  wrote  to  Mr  Adams  confidential 
letters,  informing  him  of  the  various  measures  proposed 
as  reinforcements  or  substitutes  for  the  embargo,  and 
soliciting  his  opinions  upon  the  subject.  He  answer- 
ed those  letters  with  frankness,  and  in  confidence.  He 
earnestly  recomuKMided  the  substitution  of  the  non -in- 
tercourse for  the  embargo  ;  and,  in  giving  his  reasons 
for  this  preference,  was  necessarily  led  to  enlarge  upon 
the  views  and  purposes  of  certain  leaders  of  the  |)arty, 
which  had  the  management  of  the;  State  [legislature 
in  their  hands.  \h)  urged  that  a  continuance  of  the 
embargo  nuich  longer  would  certainly  be  met  by  forci- 
ble resistance,  supported  by  the  Legislature,  and  prob- 
ably by  the  Judiciary  of  the  State.  That  to  cpiell  that 
resistance,  if  force  should  be  resorted  to  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, it  would  produce  a  civil  war  ;    and  that  in 


1 


,r'. 


~>.-Jh. 


I 


« 


1 


0 


that  event,  ho  hatl  no  doiiht  tlje  Uadcis  of  llu;  party 
would  secure  the  co-operation  with  them  ol'  (Jreat  Bri- 
tain. Tliat  th(!ir  ohject  was,  and  had  hcen  lor  several 
years,  a  dissoKilion  of  the  Union,  and  tiie  establish- 
ment of  a  separate  Confederation,  he  knew  from  une- 
quivocal evidence,  although  not  provciahle  in  a  court 
of  law  ;  and  that,  in  the  ease;  of  a  civil  war,  the  aid 
of  Great  Britain  to  eflt'ct  that  purpose  would  be  as 
surely  resorted  to,  as  it  would  be  indispensably  neces- 
sary to  the  design. 

Tiiat  these  letters  of  ]\[r  Adams  tolMr  Giles,  and  to 
other  members  of  Congress,  were  n  ad  or  shewn   to 
]Mr  Jefferson,  he  never  was   inform(?d.     They   were 
written,  not  for  communication  to  him,  but  as  answers 
to  the  letters  of  his  correspondents,  miinbers  of  Con- 
gress, soliciting  his  opinion  upon  measures  in  delibera- 
tion before  them,  and  upon  vv  hich  they  were  to  act. 
lie  wrote  them  as  the   solicit(;d  advice  of  friend  to 
friend,  both  ardent  friends  to  the  Administration,  and 
to  their  country,     lie  wrote  them  to  give  to  the  sup- 
porters of  the  Administration  of  Mr  Jefferson,  in  Con- 
gress, at  that  crisis,  the  b(!st  assistance,  by  his  informa- 
tion and  opinions,  in  his  power,     lie  had  certainly  no 
objection  that  they  should   be    communicated   to  Mr 
Jefferson  ;  but  this  was  neither  his  intention  nor  dc'- 
sire.     In  one  of  tlie  hitters  to  !\lr  Ciiies  Ik;  repeated  an 
assurance,  which  he  had  verbally  given  him  during  the 
jn-eceding  session  of  Congri'ss,  that  he  had  for  iiis  sup- 
port of  I\Ir  Jefferson's  administration  no  personal  or 
interested  motive,  and  no  favor  to  ask  of  him  what- 
ever. 


1^ 

» 


h> 


10 

That  those  letters  to  Mr  Giles  were  by  him  com- 
municated to  Mr  Jefferson,  Mr  Adams  believes  from 
the  import  of  this  letter  from  Mr  Jefferson,  now  first 
published,  and  which  has  elicited  this  statement.  He 
believes,  likewise,  that  other  letters  from  him  to  other 
members  of  Congress,  written  during  the  same  session, 
and  upon  the  same  subject,  were  also  communicated 
to  him  ;  and  that  their  contents,  after  a  lapse  of  seven- 
teen years,  were  blcndc'd  confusedly  in  his  memory, 
first,  with  the  information  given  by  Mr  Adams  to  him 
at  their  interview  in  March,  1808,  nine  months  before; 
and  next,  with  events  which  occurred  during  the  sub- 
sequent war,  and  of  which,  however  natural  as  a  se- 
quel to  the  information  and  oj)inions  of  Mr  Adams, 
communicated  to  him  at  those  two  prc^ceding  ])criods[ 
he  could  not  have  received  the  information  from  liim. 


\ 


I     h 


s?*., 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Sir, 


Boston,  November  20,  1828. 

TO  TUG  nONOUABLE  JOIIX  UUINCY  ADAMS. 

The  undersigned,  cirizens  of  Massachusetts,  re- 
sidnig  in  Boston  and  its  vicinity,  take  the  liberty  of 
addressing  you  on  the  subject  of  a  statement  published 
in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  the  21st  of  October, 
and  which  purports  to  have  been  communicated  or  au-' 
thorised  by  you. 

In  that  statement,  after  speaking  of  those  individu- 
als in  this  State,  whom  the  writer  designates  as  'cer- 
tain lead(>rs  of  the  party  which  had  the  management 
ol  the  State  J.egislature  in  their  hands'  in  the  year 
1 808,  and  saying,  that  in  the  event  of  a  civil  war,  he 
(lAIr  Adams)  '  IkkI  no  doubt  the  leaders  of  the  party 
would  secure  the  co-operation  with  them  of  Great 
IJntam,'  it  is  added,  '  That  their  object  was,  and  had 
b.>en  for  several  years,  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and 
the  establishment  of  a  separate  Confederation,  he  knew 
Irom  unecpuvocal  evidence,  although  not  proveable  in  a 
court  of  law.' 

This,  sir,  is  not  the  expression  of  an  opinion  as  to 
the  nature  and  tendency  of  the  measures  at  that  time 
1>"I)  '<'Iy  adopt(>d,  or  proposed,  by  the  party  i,revailing 
"I  the  estate  of  Massachusetts.  Kyery  citizen  ^^•as  a" 
hh.Mty  to  lorm  his  own  opinions  on  that  subject ;  and 
^^■c  cheerfully  submit  the  propriety  of  those  measures 


1         i 


12 


\i 
if 


(  4, 

i  : 


to  the  judgmoiU  of  an  impartial  posterity.  But  the" 
sontcnco  which  wc  have  quoted  contains  tlie  assertion 
of  a  distinct  fact,  as  one  witliin  your  own  knowledge. 
We  are  not  permitted  to  consider  it  as  llie  unguarded 
expression  of  irritated  feelings,  hastily  uttered  at  a 
time  of  great  political  excitement.  Twenty  years  have 
elapsed  since  this  charge  was  first  made,  in  private 
correspondence  with  certain  memhers  of  Congress  ; 
and  it  is  now  deliberately  repeated,  and  brought  before 
the  Public  under  the  sanction  of  your  name,  as  being 
founded  on  unequivocal  evidence,  witiiin  your  knowl- 
edge. 

We  do  not  claim  for  ourselves,  nor  even  for  those 
deceased  friends  whose  representatives  join  in  this 
address,  the  tith;  of  leaders  of  any  party  in  Massachu- 
setts ;  but  we  were  associated  in  politics  with  tiie 
party  prevailing  here  at  the  period  referred  to  in  the 
statement  above  mentioned  ;  some  of  us  concurred  in 
all  the  measures  adopted  by  that  party ;  and  we  all 
warmly  approved  and  supported  those  measures. 
Many  of  our  associates  who  still  survive,  art;  dispersed 
throuiihout  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  and  could  not 
easily  be  convened  to  join  us  on  the  present  occasion. 
We  trust  however  that  you  will  not  question  our 
right,  if  not  for  ourselves  alone,  at  least  in  behalf  of 
the  highly  valued  friends  with  whom  we  acted  at  that 
time,  and  especially  of  those  of  them  who  are  now 
deceased,  respectfully  to  ask  from  you  such  a  full  and 
precise  statement  of  the  facts  and  evidence  relating  to 
this  accusation,  as  may  enable  us  fairly  to  meet  and 
answer  it. 

The  oiyect  of  this  letter  therefore  is,  to  request  you 
to  state 


•.4: 


13 


Dcine: 


First,  Who  are  the  persons,  designated  as  leaders 
of  tV  -arty  prevailing  in  Massachusetts  in  the  jear 
1808,  viiosc  object,  you  assert,  was  and  had  been  for 
several  years,  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  separate  Confederation  ?  and 

Secondly,  the  whole  evidence  on  which  that  charo-e 
is  founded.  * 

It  is  admitted  in  the  statement  of  the  charge,  that  it 
is  not  provcal)le  in  a  court  of  law,  and  of  course  that 
you  are  not  in  possession  of  any  legal  evidence  by 
which  to  maintain  it.  The  evidence  however  must 
have  been  such  as  in  your  opinion  woidd  have  been 
pronounced  unequivocal  by  upright  and  honorable  men 
of  discritiilnating  minds  ;  and  we  may  certainly  expect 
from  your  sense  of  justice  and  self  respect  a  full  disclo- 
sure of  all  that  you  possess. 

A  charge  of  this  nature,  coming  as  it  does  from  the 
first  magistrate  of  the  nation,  accpiires  an  importance 
which  we  cannot  aflect  to  disregard  ;  and  it  is  one 
which  we  ought  not  to  leave  unanswered.     We  are 
therefore   constrained,  by  a  regard  to  our  deceased 
friends  and  to  our  posterity,  as  well  as  by  a  sense  of 
what  is  due  to  our  own  honor,  most  solemnly  to  de- 
clare, that  we  have  never  known  nor  suspected  that 
the  party  wiiich  prevailed  in  Massachusetts  in  the  year 
1808,  or  any  other  party  in  this  State,  ever  entertained 
the  design  to  produce  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  or 
the  estal)lishment  of  a  sejiarate  Confederation.     It  is 
imjiossible  for  us  in  any  other  manner  to  refute,  or 
even  to  answer  this  charge,  until  we  see  it  fully  and 
particularly  stated,  and  know  the  evidence  by  which 
it  is  to  be  maintained. 


i-j 


tj  t 


'!•• 


lU 


!  4!W 


l:i' 


14 


The  undersigned  think  it  due  to  themselves  to  add, 
that  in  making  this  application  to  you,  they  have  no 
design  nor  wisli  to  produce  an  effect  on  any  political 
party  or  question  whatever.  Neither  is  it  their  pur- 
pose to  enter  into  a  vindication  or  discussion  of  the 
measures  publickly  adopted  and  avowed  by  the  per- 
sons against  whom  tiie  above  charge  has  been  made. 
Our  sole  object  is  to  draw  forth  all  the  evidence  on 
which  that  charge  is  founded,  in  order  that  the  public 
may  judge  of  its  application  and  its  weight. 
We  are  Sir,  with  due  respect. 

Your  obedient  servants. 


IT.  G.  OTIS, 

ISRAEL  TIIORNDIKE, 
T.  H.  PERKINS, 
WM.  PRESCOTT, 

DANIEL  SARGENT, 
JOHN  LOWELL, 
\V:\].  SULLIVAN, 


CHARLES  JACKSON, 
AVARREN  BUTTON, 
BENJ.  P1CK]\L\N, 
HENRY  C\l?OT, 

C.  C.  PAKSOXS, 

Sim  of  Tlu'o|iliilus  ruisiiiiM,  lisii.  (U'Ci;asuJ. 

FRANKLIN   DEXTER, 

t>uii  lit'  llir  lalu  .■^aiuuil  ilcxtcr. 


i     V        I 

U  i 


■iaiM 


MR  ADAMS'  REPLY  TO  THE  PRECEDLXG  LETTER. 


H'ashington,  3{)th  December,  ^28. 

Messrs  IT.  C;.  Oti.,  Tsrnol  Tl.orn.liko,  T.  If.  Porki,,.,  WiHi,u,.  p,,s.. 
cotf,  DmhipI  S:,r-,.nt,  .l„hn  Lowoil,  William  Sullivan,  Ci.arios  fack- 
«on,  W  arrcu  Dull,,,,,  I'.enjamin  Pickuian.Hcmy  Cabot,  C.  C.  Parsons 
ami  Franklin  Dcxtor—  ' 

Gentlemen, 

I  liave  received  your  letter  of  the  2Gth  ult. 
and  recognizing  among  the  signatures  to  it,  names* 
of  persons  for  wliom  a  long  and  on  my  part  un- 
interrupted friendship,  has  survived  all  the  bitter- 
ness of  political  dissension,  it  would  have  aflbrded 
me  pleasure  to  answer  with  explicitness  and  can- 
dor not  only  those  persons,  hut  each  and  every 
one  of  you,  upon  the  only  cpiestions  in  relation  to 
the  subject  matter  of  your  letter,  which  as  men  or 
as  citizens  I  can  acknowledge  your  right  to  ask ; 
namely  whether  the  interrogator  was  himself  one 
of  the  persons,   intended  by  mo   in  the  extract 
which  you  have  given,  from  a  statement  authoriz- 
ed by  me  and  published  in  the  National  Intelli- 
gencer of  21st  October  last. 


■P 


16 


/>- 


i 


*) 


;!^' 


i'  1^ 

.if  J 

1  If; 


Had  you  or  either  of  you  thought  proper  to 
ask  mc  this  question,  it  would  have  heen  more 
satisfactory  to  me  to  receive  the  inquiry  separate- 
ly from  each  individual,  than  arrayed  in  solid 
phalanx,  each  responsible  not  only  for  himself  but 
for  all  the  others.  The  reasons  for  this  must  be 
so  obvious  to  persons  of  your  intelligence,  that  I 
trust  you  will  spare  me  the  pain  of  detailing  them. 
But,  Gentlemen,  this  is  not  all.  You  undertake 
your  inquisition,  not  in  your  own  names  alone ; 
but  as  the  representatives  of  a  great  and  i)ower- 
ful  party,  dispersed  throughout  the  States  of  Mas- 
sachusetts and  IVIaino  :  A  })arty  commanding,  at 
the  time  to  which  your  inquiries  refer,  a  devoted 
majority  in  the  Legislature  of  the  then  United 
Commonwealth  ;  and  even  now,  if  judged  of  by 
the  character  of  its  volunteer  delegation,  of  great 
influence  and  respectability. 

I  cannot  recognize  you,  on  this  occasion,  as  the 
representatives  of  that  party,  for  two  reasons — 
first,  because  you  have  neither  produced  your  cre- 
dentials for  presenting  yourselves  as  their  cham- 
pions, nor  assigned  satisfactory  reasons  for  pre- 
senting yourselves  without  them.  But,  secondly, 
and  chiefly,  because  your  introduction  of  that 
party  into  this  question  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
Your  solemn  declaration  that  you  do  not  know 
that  the  federal  or  any  other  party,  at  the  time  to 
which  my  statement  refers,  intended  to  produce 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  the  formation  of 
a  new  confederacy,  does  not  take  the  issue,  which 
your  own  statement  of  my  charge  (as  you  are 


17 


are 


pleased  to  consider  it)  had  tendered.  The  state- 
ment autliorizcd  by  me,  spoke,  not  of  tlio  federal 
[)arty,  but  of  certain  leaders  of  that  party.  In  my 
own  letters  to  the  Members  of  Con<^ress,  who  did 
me  tlie  honor  at  that  aironizing  crisis  to  our  Na- 
tional  Union,  of  sohciting  my  confidential  opinions 
upon  measures  under  deliberation,  I  expressly  ac- 
quitted the  great  body  of  the  federal  party,  not 
only  of  participating  in  the  secret  designs  of  those 
leaders,  but  even  of  being  privy  to  or  believing  in 
their  existence.  I  now  cheerfully  repeat  that 
declaration.  1  well  know  that  the  party  were  not 
prepared  for  that  convulsion,  to  which  the  meas- 
ures and  designs  of  their  leaders  were  instigating 
them  ;  and  my  extreme  anxiety  for  the  substitution 
of  the  nonintercourse  for  the  embargo  arose  from 
the  imminent  danger,  that  the  continuance  and 
enforcement  of  this  latter  measure  would  promote 
the  views  of  those  leaders,  by  goading  a  majority 
of  the  people  and  of  the  legislature  to  the  pitch 
of  physical  resistance,  by  State  authority,  against 
the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  Union  ;  the  only 
elVcctual  means  by  which  the  Union  could  be  dis- 
solved. Your  modesty  has  prompted  you  to  dis- 
claim the  character  of  leaders  of  the  federal  party 
at  that  time.  If  I  am  to  consider  this  as  more 
than  a  mere  disavowal  of  form,  I  must  say  that 
the  charge,  which  I  lament  to  see  has  excited  so 
much  of  your  sensibility,  had  no  reference  to  any 
of  you. 

Your  avowed  object  is  controversy.     You  call 
for  a  precise  state  of  facts  and  evidence  ;  not  af- 
3 


If 


i 

I 


Jit 
'"  If 


18 


fectinjT,  so  far  as  you  know,  any  ono  of  you,  but 
to  enable  you  fairly  to  meet  ami  to  answer  it. 
And  you  demand, 

1.  \Vlio  are  tlio  j)crsons  desitrnatcd  as  leaders  of 
tlic  party  prevailin*,'  in  iMassaehusetts  in  tlic  year 
180H,  wbose  object  I  assert  was,  and  bad  been, 
for  several  years,  a  dissolution  of  tbe  Union,  and 
tlie  establislnnent  of  a  se[)arate  confederacy  r  and 

2.  Tlic  wbolc  evidence,  on  wbicb  tbat  cbargc 
is  founded. 

You  observe  tbat  it  is  admitted,  in  tbe  state- 
ment of  tbe  cbarge,  tbat  it  is  not  proveablc  in  a 
court  of  law,  and  your  inference  is,  tbat  1  am  of 
course  not  in  possession  of  any  legal  evidence,  by 
wbicb  to  nuiintain  it.  Vet  you  call  upon  me  to 
7i(tine  tbe  persons  alVected  by  tiie  cbargc  ;  a  cliargc 
in  your  jstimatc  deeply  stigmatising  upon  tbosc 
})ersons  ;  and  you  permit  yourselves  to  remind  mc, 
tbat  my  sense  of  justice  and  sclf-rcsjicct  oblige  mc 
to  disclose  all  tbat  1  do  possess.  ]\Iy  sense  of  jus- 
tice to  you,  (icntlcmen,  induces  me  to  remark, 
tbat  I  leave  your  self-respect  to  tbe  moral  in- 
fluences of  your  own  minds,  witbout  presuming  to 
measure  it  by  tbe  dictation  of  mine. 

Suppose,  tben,  tbat  in  compliance  witb  your 
call,  1  sbould  name  one,  two,  or  tbree  persons,  as 
intended  to  be  included  in  tbe  cbarge.  Suppose 
neitbcr  of  tbosc  persons  to  be  one  of  you.  Vou 
however  bave  given  tbem  notice,  tbat  I  iiave  no 
evidence  against  tbem,  by  wbicb  tbe  cbarge  is 
proveable  in  a  court  of  law — and  you  know  tbat 
I,  as  well  as  yourselves,  am  amenable  to  tlic  laws 


4 

1A 


1 


your 

lis,  as 

jposc 

\oii 
vc  no 
;«|G  is 

that 

laws 


ID 


of  the  land.  Does  your  self-respect  convince  you 
thiit  the  persons  so  named,  if  guilty,  would  furnish 
tlie  evidence  against  themselves,  which  they  have 
been  notilied  that  [  do  not  possess?  Are  you 
sure  that  the  correspondence,  whicii  wouhl  prove 
their  guilt,  may  not  in  the  lapse  of  twentylive 
yours  have  been  committed  to  the  ilamcs  ?  In 
those  (lays  of  failing  and  of  treacherous  memories, 
may  they  not  have  forgotten  that  any  such  corres- 
pondence ever  existed  ?  And  have  you  any  guaran- 
tee to  oiler,  that  f  should  not  be  called  by  a  sum- 
mons more  imperative  than  yours,  to  produce  in 
the  tem})lo  of  justice  the  proof,  whicli  you  say  I 
have  n(^t,  or  be  branded  for  a  foul  and  malignant 
slanderer  of  spotless  and  persecuted  virtue  ?  Is 
it  not  besitles  imngiimblc  that  persons  may  exist, 
who  though  twentylive  years  since  driven  in  the 
des[)erati<)ii  of  disappointment,  to  the  nieditation 
and  ijrcparalion  of  measures  tending  to  the  disso- 
lution of  the  Union,  perceived  afterwards  the 
error  of  their  ways,  and  would  now  gladly  wash 
out  from  their  own  memories  their  participation 
in  j)roiects,  upon  which  the  stamp  of  indelible  re- 
probation has  past?  Is  it  not  possible  that  some 
of  the  consjjirators  have  been  called  to  account 
before  a  higher  than  an  earthly  tribunal  for  all  the 
good  and  evil  of  their  lives  ;  and  whose  reputa- 
tions might  now  sutler  needlessly  by  the  disclosure 
of  their  names  ?  I  put  these  cases  to  you.  Gen- 
tlemen, as  possible,  to  show  you  that  neither  my 
sense  of  justice  nor  my  self-respect  does  require 
of  me  to  produce  the  evidence  for  which  you  call, 


20 


or  to  disclose  the  names  of  persons,  for  whom  you 
have  and  can  liavc  no  riglit  to  speak. 

Tliese  considerations  appear  indeed  to  mc  so 
forcible;,  that  it  is  not  uitliont  surprise,  that  I  am 
compelled  to  believe  tlicy  had  escaped  your  ob- 
servation. 1  camiot  believe  of  any  of  you  that 
wluch  I  am  sure  never  entered  tlie  hearts  of  some 
of  you,  that  you  siiould  have  selected  the  present 
moment,  for  the  purpose  of  drawinijf  me  into  a 
controversy  not  only  with  yourselves,  but  with 
others,  you  know  not  whom — of  darinif  me  to  the 
denouncement  of  names,  which  twenty  years 
since  I  declined  committin<r  to  the  car  of  confi- 
dential friemlshij) ;  and  to  the  production  of  evi- 
dence wiiich,  tliouifh  j)orfectly  satisfactory  to  my 
own  mind,  and  perlectly  competent  for  the  foun- 
dation of  honest  and  patriotic  public  conduct,  was 
adecpiatc  in  a  court  of  law  neither  to  the  convic- 
tion of  the  guilty,  nor  to  the  justification  of  the 
accuser,  and  so  e.\j)licitly  ])r{)nounced  by  ujysclf. 

You  say  tluit  you  have  no  design  nor  wisli  to 
produce  an  clfect  on  any  political  j)art\  or  ques- 
tion whatever, — nor  to  enter  into  a  vindication  of 
the  measures  publicly  adopted  and  avowed  by  the 
persons,  against  whom  the  above  charge  has  been 
made.  But  am  you  believe  that  this  subject  could 
be  discussed  between  you  and  mo,  as  you  propose, 
when  calling  upon  me  for  a  statement,  with  the 
avowed  intention  of  refuting  it,  and  not  produce 
an  effect  on  auy  political  parti/  or  (picstion  ?  With 
regard  to  the  public  measures  of  those  times  an 
the  succeeding,  which  you  declare  to  have  had 


2\ 


rou 


an 
had 


your  sanction  and  npprohation,  it  needs  no  dia- 
cIcjHuio  now,  that  a  radical  and  irreconciloahlc 
(litl'tn-cncc  ol  opinion  bctwoon  most  ol"  yourselves 
and  mo  existed.  And  can  yon  sti|)[)Ose  that  in 
<lisclosin^  names  and  statiii<jf  facts,  known  perhaps 
only  to  myself,  1  could  consent  to  separate  them 
IVom  those  public  measures,  which  yon  so  cordially 
approved  and  which  i  so  (leej)ly  lamented  ?  Afnst 
yonr  own  defence  against  these  cliar<>es  forever 
rest  exclusively  upon  a  solenni  j)rolestation  against 
the  natural  inference  from  the  irresistible  tendency 
of  action  to  the  secret  intent  of  the  actor  ?  That 
a  statesman  who  believes  in  human  virtue  should 
be  slow  to  draw  this  inference  against  such  solemn 
asseverations,  I  readily  admit  :  but  for  the  regula- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  human  life,  the  rules  of 
evidence  are  widely  different  from  those,  which 
receive  or  exclude  testimony  in  a  court  of  law. 
Even  there,  you  know,  that  violent  presumption 
is  ejjiiivalent,  in  cases  afl'ecting  life  itself,  to 
positive  proof;  and  in  a  succession  of  political 
measures  through  a  series  of  years,  all  tending 
to  the  same  result,  there  is  an  internal  evidence, 
against  which  mere  denial,  however  solemn,  can 
scarcely  claim  the  credence  even  of  the  charity, 
that  believeth  all  things. 

liCt  me  add  that  the  statement  authorized  by 
me,  as  published  in  the  National  Intelligencer, 
was  made,  not  only  without  the  intention,  but 
without  the  most  distant  imagination  of  olVendinir 
you  or  of  injuring  any  one  of  yon.  But,  on  the 
contrary,  for  the  purpose  of  expressly  disavowing 


I 


,  i!; 


i-JS 


f 


li 


Hi  y 


•■i 


') ) 


51  clmrfro,  which  was  helbrc  tlio  public,  sunctioncd 
witli  tli(;  iiaiiu!  of  the  late  i\fr  JcHursoii,  iniputing 
to  certain  citizens  of  Massachusetts  treasonable 
iieijotiations  with  the  IJiitish  "ovtMMuncnt  dur'nw 
thr  irar,  and  expressly  statini,^  that  he  had  received 
inronuation  ol*  this  iiioM  mi..  On  the  publication 
ol"  this  letter,  I  deemed  it  indispensably  due  to 
myself,  and  to  all  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts, 
not  only  to  deny  having  ever  given  such  informa- 
tion, but  all  kn()wle{l<^e  of  such  a  fact.  And  the 
more  so,  because  that  letter  had  been  published, 
though  without  my  knowledge,  yet  1  was  well 
assured,  from  motives  of  justice  and  kindness  to 
mo.  It  contained  a  declaration  by  Mr  JelVerson 
hims<^if,  frank,  explicit,  and  true,  of  the  character 
of  tiie  motives  of  my  conduct,  in  all  the  transac- 
tions of  my  intercourse  with  him,  during  the 
])eriod  of  the  embargo.  This  was  a  point  upon 
which  his  memory  could  not  deceive  him,  a  j)oint 
upon  which  he  was  the  best  of  witnesses;  and  his 
testin\ony  was  the  more  decisive  because  given  at 
a  moment,  as  it  would  seem,  of  great  excitement 
against  me  upon  ditl'erent  views  of  public  policy 
even  then  in  conflict  and  j)roducing  great  exacer- 
bation in  his  nund.  The  letter  contained  also  a 
narrative  of  a  ])ersonal  interview  between  himself 
and  Uic,  in  IMitrch,  IDO.'!,  and  stated  that  I  had 
then  given  him  information  of  facts,  which  in- 
duced him  to  consent  to  the  substitution  of  the 
nonintercourse  for  the  embargo  ;  and  also  that  I 
had  apprized  him  of  this  treasonable  negotiation 
by  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  to  secede  from  the 


-A 


1 


tioncd 

:)iKiblo 

ccivcd 
ctition 
liic  to 
usctts, 
roriua- 
ml  the 
)lislio(l, 
18  well 
ness  to 
illbrson 
iiractcr 
raiisuc- 
ng   tlic 
it  upon 
a  point 
and  ills 
iven  at 
tcmcnt 
policy 
xaccr- 
also  a 
liinself 
I  had 
ch   in- 
of  the 
that  I 
tiation 
m  the 


23 

I'niori  during  the  war,  and  pcrliaps  rejoin  after 
the  peace.  iXow  the  snbstitution  of  the  noniii- 
terconr.se  for  the  einl»ar<ro,  took  j)lace  twelve 
niontiis  after  thirf  interview,  and  at  u  sncceedinir 
session  of  Coniiress,  wiicii  I  was  not  even  a  mem- 
ber of  that  body.  The  neifotiati'Mi  for  .secedini^ 
from  the  I'nion  with  a  \i('w  to  rejoin  it  afterwards, 
if  it  ever  existed,  mnst  have  been  dinini:;  \\\v.  war. 
I  had  no  knowledge  of  such  iieuotialiun,  (jr  even 
of  sncii  a  desi;,Mi.  I  could  therefore  have  "jiveu 
no  snch  information. 

Unt  in  J.,nvin<»  an  nn(iualifi('d  denial  to  this  state- 
ment of  .\[r  .Iclfurson,  and  in  showini^  that  upon 
the  face  of  the  letter  itself  it  could  not  be  correct, 
it  was  due  to  him  to  show,  that  the  misstatement 
on  his  part  was  not  intentional ;  that  it  arose  from 
an  inlirmity  of  memory,  which  the  letter  itself  can- 
didly acknowledged  :  that  it  blended  together  in 
one  indistinct  mass,  the  information  which  1  had 
given  him  in  Alarch,  UUli),  with  the  })urport  of 
confuh-'iitial  letters,  which  I  had  written  to  his  and 
my  friends  in  Congress  a  year  after,  and  with 
events,  projects,  and  perhaps  mere  suspicions, 
natural  enough  as  consccpiences  of  the  preceding 
times,  but  wiiich  occurred,  if  at  all,  from  three  to 
six  years  later,  and  of  which  he  could  not  have 
hiid  informution  from  me.  The  simj)le  fact  of 
which  I  apprized  INIr  .lelferson  was,  that,  in  the 
suMuner  of  11507,  about  the  liuie  of  what  was 
sometimes  called  the  ajf'uir  of  the  JiCopard  and 
the  Chesapeake,  I  had  seen  a  letter  from  the 
governor  of  Nova  Scotia  to  a  person  in  Massa- 


24 


H 


l^i^'  ;^ 


;l    ! 


chusctts,  affirming  that  the  British  government  had 
certain  information  of  a  i)lan  by  that  of  France, 
to  conquer  the  JJritish  possessions  and  eil'ect  a 
revolution  in  the  I  nited  States,  by  means  of  a 
war  between  tlieni  and  (J real  Britain.  As  the 
United  States  and  (lieat  Britain  were  in  1(S07  at 
peace,  a  correspondence  witli  tlie  governor  of 
Nova  Scotia,  liekl  by  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  imported  no  viohition  of  law  ;  nor  could 
the  correspondent  be  res[)onsible  for  anything 
which  the  <rovernor  miuht  write.  But  mv  infer- 
ences  from  this  fact  were,  that  there  existed  be- 
tween the  British  government  and  the  })arty  in 
Massachusetts  opposed  to  JNIr  .letlerson,  a  channel 
of  connnunication  through  the  governor  of  iXova 
Scotia,  which  lir  was  exercising  to  inilame  their 
luitred  against  France  and  their  jealousies  against 
their  own  govenuncnt.  The  letter  was  not  to 
any  leader  of  the  federal  party ;  but  I  had  no 
doubt  it  had  been  shown  to  some  of  them,  as  it 
had  been  to  mo,  without  iniunclion  of  secrecy ; 
and,  as  I  supj)Osc(l,  wilii  a  view  to  convince  me 
that  this  conspiracy  between  J\aj)oleon  and  ]\[r 
Jollcrson  really  existed.  How  that  channel  of 
communication  might  be  further  \\<(h\,  was  nuitter 
of  conjecture:  for  the  mission  of  iNFr  .)olm  Henry 
was  nine  months  after  my  interview  with  Mr  Jef- 
ferson, and  precisely  at  the  time  when  J  was  writ- 
ing to  mv  I'rieuds  in  Congress  the  letters  uriiiiiii 
the  substitution  of  the  uoiiintercoursc  for  the 
embarjio.  Of  ^\r  lleurv's  mission  I  knew  nothiu<T 
till  it  was  disclosed  bv  himself  in  lol'i. 


25 

It  was  in  these  letters  of  1808  and  1809,  that 
I  montionod  the  design  of  certain  leaders  of  the 
federal  party  to  effect  a  dissohition  of  the  Union, 
and  the  establishment  of  a  Northern  Confederacy. 
This  design  had  been  formed,   in  the  winter  of 
lfi03-4,  immediately  after,  and  as  a  consequence 
of  the   acquisition   of  Louisiana.      Its  justifying 
causes  to  those  who  entertained  it  were,  that  the 
annexation  of  Louisiana  to  the  [Jnion  transcended 
the  constitutional  powers  of  the  government  of 
the  LInited  States.     That  it  formed  in  fact  a  new 
conjcderncy  to   which  the   States,   united  by  the 
former  compact,  were  not  bound  to  adhere.    That 
it  was  oppressive  to  the  interests  and  destructive 
to  the  influence  of  the  Northern  section  of  the 
confederacy,   whose   right   and   duty   it  therefore 
was  to  secede  from  the  new  body  politic,  and  to 
constitute  one  of  their  own.     This  plan  was  so  far 
matured,  that  the  i)roposal  had  been  made  to  an 
individual   to  permit  himself,  at  the  proper  time, 
to  be  placed  at  the  head  of  the  military  movements,' 
which    it  was   foreseen  would   be    necessary  for 
carrying  it  into  execution.     In  all  this  there  was 
no  overt  act  of  treason.     In  the  abstract  theory  of 
our  government  the  obedience  of  the  citizen  is 
not  due  to  an  unconstitutional  law.     lie  may  law- 
fully resist  its  execution.     If  a  single  individual 
undertakes  this  resistance,  our  constitutions,  both 
of  tiio  United   States  and  of  each  separate  State, 
have    provided    a  judiciary    power,    judges    and 
juries,  to  decide  between  the  individiial  and  the 
legislative  net,  which  he  has  resisted  as  uncon- 
4 


1 


26 


!# 


stitutional.  But  let  us  suppose  the  case  that  le- 
gislative acts  of  one  or  more  States  of  this  Union 
are  past,  conflicting  with  acts  of  Congress,  and 
commanding  the  resistance  of  their  citizens  against 
them,  and  what  else  can  he  the  result  hut  war, — 
civil  war  ?  and  is  not  that,  de  facto,  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  so  far  as  the  resisting  States  are 
concerned  ?  and  what  would  he  the  coiulition  of 
every  citizen  in  the  resisting  States  ?  Bound  hy 
the  douhle  duty  of  allegiance  to  the  Union,  and  to 
the  State,  he  would  he  crushed  hetween  the  upper 
and  the  nether  millstone,  with  the  performnnce  of 
every  civic  duty  converted  into  a  crime,  and  guilty 
of  treason,  hy  every  act  of  ohedicnce  to  the  law. 

That  the  power  of  armexing  Ijouisiaua  to  this 
Union  had  not  heen  deh>gatcd  to  Congress,  hy 
the  constitution  of  the  L  nited  States,  was  my  own 
opinion  ;  and  it  is  recorded  upon  the  journals  of 
the  senate,  of  w  hich  1  was  tlum  a  meniher.  But 
far  from  thinking  the  act  itself  a  justifying  cause 
for  secession  from  the  Union,  1  regarded  it  as  one 
of  the  happiest  events,  which  had  occurred  since 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  I  regretted  that 
an  Jiccidental  illness  in  my  family,  which  detained 
me  on  my  way  to  Washington  to  take  my  seat  in 
the  senate,  deprived  me  of  the  [)Ower  of  voting 
for  the  ratification  of  the  treaties,  hy  which  the 
cession  was  secured.  I  arrived  at  Washington 
on  the  fourth  day  of  the  session  of  Congress,  and 
on  entering  the  <'ity,  passed  hy  the  secretarv  of 
the  senate,  who  was  going  from  the  capitol  to 
the  president's  house,  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  that  hody  to  the  ratification. 


-J 


27 


I  took  my  seat  in  the  senate  the  next  day. 
Bills  were  immediately  brought  into  Congress 
making  appropriations  to  the  amount  of  tifteen 
millions  of  dollars  for  carrying  the  convention 
into  etTcct,  and  for  enabling  the  president  to  take 
possession  of  the  ceded  territory.  These  mea- 
sures were  opposed  by  all  the  members  of  the 
senate,  who  had  voted  against  the  ratifications  of 
the  conventions.  They  were  warmly  and  cordi- 
ally supported  by  me.  I  had  no  doubt  of  the  con- 
stitutional power  to  make  the  treaties.  It  is  ex- 
pressly delegated  in  the  constitution.  The  power 
of  making  the  stipulated  payment  for  the  cession, 
and  of  taking  possession  of  the  ceded  territory, 
was  equally  unquestioned  by  me ; — they  were 
constructive  powers,  but  1  thought  them  fairly 
incidental,  and  necessarily  consequent  upon  the 
power  to  make  the  treaty.  JJut  the  power  cf 
annexing  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana  to  the  Union, 
of  conferring  upon  them,  in  a  mass,  all  the  rights, 
and  rocpiiring  of  them  all  the  duties,  of  citizens  of 
the  I'nited  Slates,  it  appeared  to  me  had  not  been 
(lelegiited  to  Congress  by  the  people  of  the  Union, 
and  could  not  have  been  delegated  by  them, 
without  the  consent  of  the  people  of  Louisiana 
themselves.  I  thought  they  required  an  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution,  and  a  vote  of  the  people 
of  Louisiami:  and  I  olfered  to  the  senate,  resolu- 
tions for  carrying  both  those  measures  into  effect, 
which  were  rejected. 

It  has   been    recently  ascertained,  by  a   letter 
from    Mr  jt'ifterson    to   Mr    Dunbar,    written  in 


2» 


I 


I    { 
( 

1 

i 

■i 

s;    If 


I 


July  1803,  after  he  liad  received  the  treaties,  and 
convened  Congress  to  consider  them,  that,  in  his 
opinion,  the  treaties  could  not  be  carried  into  ef- 
fect without  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  : 
and  that  the  proposal  for  such  an  amendment 
would  be  the  first  measure  adopted  by  them,  at 
their  meeting.  Yet  Mr  JeiVerson,  president  of  the 
United  States,  did  approve  the  acts  of  Congress, 
assuming  the  power  which  ho  had  so  recently 
thought  not  delegated  to  them,  and,  as  the  Execu- 
tive of  the  Union  carried  them  into  execution. 

Thus  Mr  Jelferson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  the  federal  members  of  Congress,  who 
opposed  and  voted  against  the  ratification  of  the 
treaties,  and  myself,  all  concurred  in  the  opinion, 
that  the  Louisiana  cession  treaties  transcended 
the  constitutional  powers  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States.  But  it  was,  after  all,  a  (lues- 
tion  of  constructive  power.  The  power  of  making 
the  treaty  was  expressly  given  without  limitation. 
The  sweeping  clause,  by  which  all  powers,  neces- 
sary and  proper  for  carrying  into  effect  those 
expressly  delegated,  may  be  understood  as  unlimit- 
ed. It  is  to  be  presumed,  that  wlu-a  Mv  .Ictforson 
approved  and  executed  the  acts  of  Congress,  as- 
suming the  doubtful  j)Ower,  he  had  broiio;hi  his 
mind  to  acquiesce  in  this  somewhat  latitudinarian 
construction.  I  opposed  it  as  long  and  as  fiir  as 
my  opposition  could  avad.  I  acquiesced  in  it, 
after  it  had  received  the  sanction  of  all  the  orji'a- 
nized  authority  of  tiie  Union,  and  the  tacit  ac(iui- 
csccnce  of  the   people  of  the   United  States  and 


29 


of  Louisiana.  Since  which  time,  so  far  as  this 
precedent  goes,  and  no  farther,  I  have  considered 
the  question  as  irrevocably  settled. 

-But,   in  reverting  to  the  fundamental  principle 
ot  all  our  constitutions,  that  obedience  is  not  due 
to  an  unconstitutional  law,  and  that  its  execution 
may  be  lawfully   resisted,   you   must  admit,  that 
had  the  laws  of  Congress  for  annexing  Louisiana 
to   the   Union  been  resisted,   by  the  authority  of 
one  or  more   States  of  the  then  existing  confed- 
eracy,   as    unamstituliumd,    that    resistance  might 
have  been  carried  to  the  extent  of  dissolving  the 
Union,   and  of  forming  a  new  confederacy  ;   and 
that  if  the  consequences  of  the  cession   had  been 
so  oppressive  upon  ^cw  Lngland  and  the  North, 
as   was    ap])rehen<lcd    by    the    federal  leaden,  to 
whose  conduct   at  that  time  all  these  observations 
refer,   the  project  whicli  they  did    then  form  of 
severing  the  (Jnion,  and  establishing  a  Northern 
Confederacy   would    in    their  apj)lication  of  the 
abstract  principle   to  the  existing  state  of  things 
have   been  justifiable.     In   their  views,  therefore, 
I  impute  to  them  nothing  which  it  could  be  neces- 
sary for  them  to  disavow  ;  and,  accordingly,  these 
principles  were  distinctly  and  e\])licit!y  avowed, 
eight    years   afterwards,    by  my  excclkmt    friend, 
Mr  (^uincy,   in  his  speech  upon  the  admission  of 
Louit^iana,  as  a  State,  into  the  Union.     Whether 
he  had  any  knowledge  of  the  practical  project  of 
in03and   I,  1  know  not:  but  the  argument  of  his 
speech,    in   which    he    referred   to   my    recorded 
opinions   u])on  the  constitutional  power,  was  an 


I[    i 


30 


eloquent  exposition  of  the  justifying  causes  of  that 
project,  as  I  had  heard  them  detailed  at  the  time. 
That  project,  I  repeat,  had  gone  to  the  length  of 
fixing  upon  a  military  leader  for  its  execution  ;  and 
although  the  circumstances  of  the  times  never 
admitted  of  its  execution,  nor  even  of  its  full  de- 
velopernent,  I  had  yet  no  douht,  in  1808  and  1809, 
and  have  no  doubt  at  this  time,  that  it  is  the  key  to 
all  the  great  movements  of  these  leaders  of  the 
federal  party  in  New  England,  from  that  time 
forward,  till  its  final  catastrophe  in  the  Hartford 
Convention. 

Gentlemen,  I  observe  among  the  signers  of  your 
letter,  .he  names  of  two  uicmbers  of  that  Conven- 
tion, together  with  that  of  ihc  son  of  its  president. 
You  will  not  understand  me  as  aflirming,  that 
eithcrof  you  was  privy  to  thisplanof  military  execu- 
tion, in  1804.  That  may  he  known  to  yourselves 
and  not  to  me.  A  letter  of  your  first  signer,  re- 
cently published,  has  disclosed  the  fact,  that  he, 
although  the  putative  was  not  the  real  father  of 
the  Hartford  Convention.  As  he,  uho  has  hither- 
to enjoyed  unrivalled,  the  honors,  is  now  disposed 
to  bestow  upon  others  the  shame  of  its  paternity, 
may  not  the  ostensible  and  the  real  character  of 
other  incidents  attending  it,  be  alike  diversified, 
so  that  the  main  and  ultimate  object  of  that  as- 
sembly, though  beaming  in  splendor  from  its  acts, 
was  yet  in  dim  eclipse  to  the  vision  of  its  most 
distinguished  members  ? 

However  this  may  be,  it  was  this  project  of 
1803  and  4,  which,  from  the  time  when  I  first 


31 


took  my  seat  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States, 
alienated  me  from  the  secret  councils  of  those 
leaders  of  the  federal  party.  [  was  never  initiat- 
ed in  them.  I  approved  and  supported  the  ac- 
quisition of  Louisiana  ;  and  Irom  the  first  moment 
that  the  project  of  separation  was  made  known  to 
mc,  I  opposed  to  it  a  determined  and  inflexible 
resistance. 

It  is  well  known  to  some  of  you,  Gentlemen, 
that  the  cession  of   Louisiana  was  not  the   first 
occasion  upon   which  my  duty  to  my  country  pre- 
scribed to  mc  a  course  of  conduct  different  from 
that  which  would  have  beon  dictated  to  mo  by  the 
leaders  and  the  spirit  of  party.     More  than  one  of 
you  was  present  at  a  meeting  of  members  of  the 
Massachusetts    Legislature  on    the  27th   of   May 
1802,  the  day  after  I  first  took  my  seat  as  a  mem- 
ber of  that  legislature.      A   proposal   then   made 
by  mc,  to  aduiit  to  the   council  of  the  Common- 
wealth, a   proportional  representation  of  the  mi- 
nority as  it  existed  in  the  two  houses,  has,  I  trust, 
not  been  forgotten.     It  was   the   first  act  of  my 
legislative    life,   and    it  marked   the  principle  by 
which  my  whole  public  career  has  been  governed, 
from   that   day  to  this.     My  proposal  was   unsuc- 
cessful,  and   perhaps  it  forfeited  whatever  confi- 
dence might  have  been  otherwise   bestowed  upon 
me    as   a   party    follower.      My    conduct    in    the 
senate   of  the    United   States,  with  regard  to  the 
Louisiana  cession,   was  not    more  acceptable  to 
the  leaders  of  the  federal  party,  and  some  of  you 
may  perhaps   remember  that  it  was  not  suifered 


i'^ 


i^rrr. 


to  pass  without  notice  or  censure,  in  the  public 
federal  journals  of  the  time. 

With  regaid  to  the  project  of  a  separate  Nor- 
thern Confederacy,  formed  in  the  winter  of  l<i03, 
4,  in  conse<iuencc  of  the  Louisiana  cession,  it  is 
not  to  me  tiiat  you  must  apply  for  copies  of  the 
correspondence  in  v\hich  it  was  contained.  To 
that  and  to  every  other  project  of  disunion,  I  have 
been  constantly  opposed.  Riy  principles  do  not 
admit  the  right  even  oi'  the  j)coj>le,  still  less  of 
the  legislature  of  any  one  Slate  in  the  Union,  to 
secede  at  j)leasure  from  the  Union.  No  provision 
is  made  for  the  exercise  of  this  right,  either  by  the 
federal  or  any  of  the  State  constitutions.  The  act 
of  exercising  it,  presupposes  a  departure  from  the 
principle  of  compact  and  a  resort  to  that  of  force. 

if,  in  the  exercise  of  their  respective  func- 
tions, the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  au- 
thorities of  the  Union  on  one  side,  and  of  one 
or  more  States  on  the  other,  are  brought  into  di- 
rect collision  with  each  other,  the  relations  be- 
tween the  parties  are  no  longer  those  of  constitu- 
tional right,  but  of  independent  force.  Each 
party  construes  the  common  compact  for  itself. 
The  constructions  are  irreconcileable  together. 
There  is  no  umpire  between  them,  and  the  appeal 
is  to  the  sword,  the  ultimate  arbiter  of  right  be- 
tween independent  States,  but  not  between  the 
members  of  one  body  politic.  I  therefore  hold  it 
as  a  princijde  without  exception,  that  whenever 
the  constituted  authorities  of  a  State,  authorize 
resistance   to  any   act  of  Congress,  or  pronounce 


! 


!! 


^  1  ir- 


33 


>  i 


it  unconstitulional,  they  do  thereby  declare  them- 
selves and  their  State  (/uodd  hue  out  of  the  pale  of 
the  Union.  That  there  is  no  supposable  case,  in 
which  the  pro/i/e  of  a  State  might  jjlace  them- 
.solves  in  this  attitude,  by  the  primitive  ri<,dit  of 
insurrection  ajfaiiist  oppression,  I  will  not  allirm  : 
but  they  have  delegated  no  such  power  to  their 
legislatures  or  their  judges  ;  and  if  there  be  such 
a  right,  it  is  the  right  of  an  individual  to  commit 
suicide — the  right  of  an  iidiabitant  of  a  poj)ulous 
city  to  set  fire  to  his  own  dwelling  house.  These 
are  my  viiws.  liut  to  those,  who  think  that  each 
State  is  a  sovereign  Judge,  not  only  of  its  own 
rights,  but  of  the  extent  of  ])owcrs  conferred 
upon  the  general  government  l)y  the  people  of 
the  whole  I'nion;  and  that  each  State,  jriviu"-  its 
own  construction  to  the  constitutional  powers  of 
("ongress,  may  array  its  se})arate  sovereignty 
against  every  act  of  that  body  transcending  this 
estimate  of  their  powers — to  say  of  men  holding 
these  princii)les,  that,  for  the  ten  years  from  1804 
to  1814,  they  were  intending  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union,  and  the  formation  of  a  new  Confederacy, 
is  charging  them  with  nothing  more  than  with 
acting  up  to  their  princi|)les. 

To  the  purposes  of  party  leaders,  intending  to 
accomjdish  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  and  a  new 
Confederacy,  two  postulates  are  necessary.  First, 
an  act  or  acts  of  Congress,  which  may  be  resisted, 
as  unronstiiiitioiui/ :  and,  secondly,  a  state  of  ex- 
citement among  the  ])eoplc  of  one  or  more  States 
ofihe  Union  suHiciently  inllamed,  to  produce  acts 

5 


: 


34 

of  the  State  legislatures,  conflicting  with  the 
acts  of  Congress.  Resolutions  of  the  legisla- 
tures denying  the  powers  of  Congress,  are  the 
first  steps  in  this  march  to  disunion  ;  but  th(>y  avail 
nothing,  without  subsequent  and  corresponding 
action.  The  annexation  of  Louisiana  to  the 
Union  was  believed  to  be  unconstitutional,  but 
it  produced  no  excitement  to  resistance  among 
the  people.  Its  beneficial  consequences  to  the 
whole  Union  were  soon  felt,  and  took  away  all 
possibility  of  holding  it  up  as  the  labarum  of  a 
political  religion  of  disunion.  The  projected 
separation  met  with  other  disasters  and  slumbered, 
till  t!;e  attack  of  the  Leopard  on  the  Chcsapeako;, 
followed  by  the  Orders  in  Council  of  11  th  No- 
vember, 1807,  led  to  the  embargo  of  the  22d 
December  of  that  year.  The  first  of  these  events 
brought  the  nation  to  the  brink  of  war  with  Great 
Britain;  and  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that 
the  second  was  intended  as  a  measure  familiar  to 
the  policy  of  that  government,  to  sweep  our  com- 
merce from  the  ocean,  carrying  into  British  ports 
every  vessel  of  ours  navigating  upon  the  seas,  and 
holding  them,  their  cargoes,  and  their  crews  in 
sequestration,  to  aid  in  the  negotiation  of  Mr 
Rose,  and  bring  us  to  the  terms  of  the  British 
cabinet.  This  was  precisely  the  period,  at  which 
the  governor  of  Nova  Scotia  was  giving  to  his 
correspondent  in  Massachusetts,  the  friendly  warn- 
ing from  the  British  government  of  the  revolu- 
tionizing and  conquering  plan  of  France,  which 
was  communicated  tome,  and  of  which  i  a[)prized 


3.J 


} 


Mr  JcfTcrson.  The  embargo,  in  the  moan  time, 
had  been  laid,  and  had  saved  most  of  our  vessels 
and  seamen  from  the  grasp  of  the  British  cruizers. 
It  had  rendered  impotent  the  British  Orders  in 
Council ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  had  choaked 
up  the  channels  of  our  own  commerce.  As  its 
operation  bore  with  heavy  pressure  upon  the 
commerce  and  navigation  of  the  North,  the  fede- 
ral leaders  soon  began  to  clamour  against  it ;  then 
to  denounce  it  as  unconstitutional  ;  and  then  to 
call  upon  the  Commercial  States  to  concert  mea- 
sures among  themselves,  to  resist  its  execution. 
The  question  made  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
embargo,  only  proved,  that,  in  times  of  violent 
popular  excitement,  the  clearest  delegation  of 
a  power  to  Congress  will  no  more  shield  the 
exercise  of  it  from  a  charge  of  usurpation,  than 
that  of  a  power  the  most  remotely  implied  or 
constructive.  The  question  of  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  embargo  was  solemnly  argued  before 
the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  at  Salem  ; 
and  although  the  decision  of  the  judge  was  in  its 
favor,  it  continued  to  be  argued  to  the  juries;  and 
even  when  silenced  before  them,  was  in  the  dis- 
temper of  the  times  so  infectious,  that  the  juries 
themselves  habitually  acquitted  those  charged 
with  the  violation  of  that  law.  There  was  little 
doubt,  that  if  the  question  of  constitutionality  had 
been  brought  before  the  State  judiciary  of  Massa- 
chusetts, the  decision  of  the  court  would  have 
been  against  the  law.  The  first  postulate  for  the 
projectors  of  disunion,  was  thus  secured.      The 


f 


Vjt^"^' 


'«   III' 


( .1 


( I 


scco!i(i  still  lingcrccl;  for  tlio  j)C()plc,  notwitli 
stfinding  tlicir  excitement,  still  clung  to  the  Union, 
and  the  Ibderal  majority  in  tlio  logislature  was 
very  small.  Then  was  brought  forward  the  first 
project  for  a  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the 
New  England  States  to  meet  in  Connecticut,  and 
then  was  the  time,  at  which  I  urged  with  so  much 
earnestness,  by  letters  to  my  friends  at  Washing- 
ton, the  substitution  of  the  non-intercourse  for  the 
embargo. 

The  non-intercourse  was  substituted.  T\\q  ar- 
rangement with  Mr  Erskine  soon  afterwards  en- 
sued ;  and  in  August,  1809,  \  embarked  upon  a 
public  mission  to  Russia.  My  absence  from  the 
United  States  was  of  eight  years'  duration,  and  1 
returned  to  take  charge  of  the  department  of 
State  in  1817. 

The  rupture  of  Mr  Erskinc's  arrangement,  the 
abortive  mission  of  Mr  Jackson,  the  disclosures  of 
Mr  John  Henry,  the  war  with  (jreat  IJritain,  the 
opinion  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  that  by  the  constitution  of  the 
L^nited  States,  no  power  was  given  either  to  tho 
president  or  to  Congress,  to  determine  the  actual 
existence  of  the  exigencies,  upon  which  the 
militia  of  the  several  States  may  be  employed  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Hartford 
Convention,  all  happened  during  my  absence  from 
this  country.  I  forbear  to  pursue  the  narrative. 
The  two  postulates  for  disunion  were  nearly  con- 
summated. The  interposition  of  a  kind  Provi- 
dence, restoring  peace  to  our  country  and  to  the 


i 


i 


37 


I 


I 


3 


world,  Jivcrtod  tlio  most  doploruUlu  of  ciitasiro- 
phcs,  and  tuniing  over  to  tlio  roco|»tacl(;  ol'tliiiiLfs 
lost  upon  ciirtli,  the  adjf)iinicd  Coiivcntion  IVoiii 
Hartford  to  lioston,  cxtiiij^niisliod  (by  the  mercy 
of  Heaven,  may  it  be  forever!)  the  projected  New 
Kn«,dand  Confederacy. 

(leiitlcmeii,  I  liavo  waved  every  scruple,  per- 
haps even  the  |)roprieties  of  my  situation,  to  give 
you  tliis  answer,  in  consideration  of  that  lomr  and 
sincere  friondsliip  for  some  of  yon,  which  can 
cease  to  heat  only  with  the  last  j)nlsation  of  my 
heart,  l>ut  I  camiot  consent  to  a  controversy  with 
you.  Here,  if  you  please,  let  our  joint  corres- 
pondence rest.  1  will  answer  for  the  public  eye, 
or  for  the  private  ear,  at  his  o[)tion,  either  of  you, 
sj)eakinii;  for  himself,  upon  any  <|uestion,  which  he 
may  justly  deem  necessary,  for  th(!  vindication  of 
his  own  re[))italion.  IJut  I  can  recognise  amom;; 
you  no  representative  characters.  .lustly  a|)pre- 
ciatinq;  the  lilial  piety  of  those,  who  have  signed 
your  letter  in  behalf  of  their  deceased  sires,  I 
have  no  reason  to  believe  that  either  of  those  pa- 
rents would  have  ;•  thori/.ed  the  demaiul  of  names, 
or  the  call  for  evidenc(!  u  hich  you  have  made. 
With  the  father  of  your  last  signer,  I  had,  in  the 
year  H'OJ),  one  or  more  iutimatelv  confidential 
conversations  on  this  very  subject,  which  I  have 
flattered  myself,  and  still  believe,  were  not  without 
their  in'''  iice  uj)OU  the  conduct  of  his  last  and 
best  <  vs  His  sou  may  have  found  no  traces  of 
this  ai  iig  his  father's  j^apers.  He  may  believe 
me  that  it  is  nevertheless  true. 


II 


•  >-r*f: 


)fl 


r*    ! 


'    I      I 


! 


ii 


\i 


38 


It  is  not  improbable  that  at  some  future  day,  a 
sense  of  solemn  duty  to  my  country,  may  require 
of  me  to  disclose  the  evidence,  which  I  do  possess, 
and  for  which  you  call.  But  of  that  day  the  se- 
lection must  be  at  my  own  judgment,  and  it  may 
be  delayed  till  I  myself  shall  have  gone  to  answer 
for  the  testimony  I  may  bear,  before  the  tribunal 
of  your  God  and  mine.  Should  a  disclosure  of 
names  even  then  be  made  by  me,  it  will,  if  possi- 
ble, be  made  with  such  reserve,  as  tenderness  to 
the  feelings  of  the  living,  and  to  the  families  and 
friends  of  the  dead  may  admonish. 

But  no  array  of  numbers  or  of  power  shall 
draw  me  to  a  disclosure,  which  I  deem  prema- 
ture, or  deter  me  from  making  it,  when  my  sense 
of  duty  shall  sound  the  call. 

In  the  mean  time,  with  a  sentiment  of  affec- 
tionate and  unabateu  regard  for  some,  and  of 
respect  for  all  of  you,  permit  me  to  subscribe 
myself. 

Your  friend  and  fellow  citizen, 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 


i 


\ 


APPEAL 


TO  THE  CITIZENS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  following  appeal  is  made  to  you,  because 
the  charges  which  have  rendered  it  necessary 
were  exhibited  by  your  highest  public  functionary, 
in  a  communication  designed  for  the  eyes  of  all  ; 
and  because  the  citizens  of  every  State  in  the 
Union  have  a  deep  interest  in  the  reputation  of 
every  other  State. 

It  is  well  known,  that,  during  the  embargo,  and 
the  succeeding  restrictions  on  our  commerce,  and 
also  during  the  lato  war  with  Great  Britain,  the 
State  of  Massachusetts  was  sometimes  charged 
with  entertaining  designs,  dangerous,  if  not  hos- 
tile, to  the  Union  of  the  States.  This  calumny, 
having  been  engendered  at  a  period  of  extreme 
political  excitement,  and  being  considered  like 
the  thousand  others  which  at  such  times  are 
fabricated  by  party  animosity,  and  which  live  out 
their  day  and  expire,  has  hitherto  attracted  very 
little  attention  in  this  State.  It  stood  on  the  same 
footing  with  the  charge  against  Hamilton,  for 
peculation  ;  against  the  late  President  Adams,  as 


40 


\    '-K- 


i    t 


being  in  favor  of  a  monarchy  and  nobilitjs  and 
against  Washington  himself,  as  hostile  to  France, 
and  devoted  to  British  interests.  Calumnies, 
which  vvcrc  seldom  believed  by  any  respectable 
members  of  the  party  uhich  circulated  them. 

The  ])UJ)lication  i)y  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  October 
last,  has  given  an  entirely  ncv/  character  to  these 
charges  against  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts. 
They  can  no  longer  be  considered  as  the  anony- 
mous slanders  of  political  ])artisunF;  :  but  as  a 
solemn  and  deliberate  impeachment  by  the  first 
magistrnte  of  the  I'nited  States,  and  under  the 
responsibility  of  his  imme.  It  apj)ears  also  that 
this  denunciation,  though  now  for  the  first  time 
made  known  to  the  public,  and  to  the  parties  im- 
plicated, (whoever  they  may  be,)  was  contained  in 
private  letters  of  Mr  Adams,  written  twenty  years 
ago,  to  members  of  the  general  government  :  and 
that  he  ventures  to  srate  it  as  founded  on  unequiv- 
ocal evidence  within  his  own  knowledge. 

It  was  im|)Ossible  for  those  who  had  any  part  in 
the  afi'airs  of  Massachusetts  during  the  period  in 
question,  to  suil'er  such  a  charge  to  go  forth  to 
the  world,  and  descend  to  posterity,  without  no- 
tice. The  high  oilicial  rank  of  the  accuser,  the 
silent,  but  baneful  inlluence  olthe  original  secret 
denunciation,  and  the  deliberate  and  unprovoked 
repetition  of  it  in  a  public  journal,  authorized  an 
api)eal  to  Mr  Adains,  for  a  specification  of  the 
j)arties  and  of  the  cvidejico,  and  rcMulered  such  an 
appeal  absolutely    imperative.       i\o  high-minded 


i* 


41 


the 


honorable  man,  of  any  party,  or  of  any  State  in 
our  confederacy,  could  e\i)cct  that  the  memory 
of  illustrious  friends  deceased,  or  the  characters 
of  the  iiving,  should  bo  left  undefended,  through 
the  fear  of  a\vakeniuf>'  lon<4  extinguished  contro- 
versies, or  of  disturbing  IMr  Adams'  retirement. 
]\[c!i  who  feel  a  just  respect  for  their  own  charac- 
ters, and  lor  public  esteem,  and  who  have  a  cor- 
res{)ondinii;  sense  of  what  is  due  to  the  reputation 
of  others,  will  admit  the  ri</ut  of  all  who  miijht  bo 
sujiposed  by  the  public  lo  1)0  included  in  Mr 
Adams'  denunciatioi,  to  call  udou  him  to  disperse 
the  cloud  with  which  he  had  enveloj)cd  their  char- 
acters. Such  persons  had  a  rij..:]it  to  reciuirc  that 
the  innocent  should  not  sulfer  with  the  guilty,  if 
any  such  there  were  ;  and  that  the  parties  against 
whom  tlie  charge  was  levelled,  should  have  an  op- 
portunitv  to  rej)el  and  disprove  it.  l\Ir  Adams  had 
indeed  admitted  that  his  allegations  could  not  be 
proved  in  a  court  of  law,  and  thereby  prudently 
declined  a  legal  investigation  ;  but  the  persons 
implicated  had  still  a  right  to  know  what  the  evi- 
dence was,  which  he  professed  to  consider  as 
'unequivocal,'  in  order  to  exhibit  it  to  the  tribu- 
nal of  the  public,  Ixdbre  which  he  had  arraigned 
them.  He  had  spoken  of  that  evidence  as  entire- 
ly satisfactory  to  him.  They  had  a  right  to  ascer- 
tain whether  it  would  be  alike  satisfactory  to  im- 
partial, upright,  and  honorable  men. 

!t  being  determined  that  this  denunciation  could 
not  be  sulfered  to  pass  unanswered,  some  question 
aiosc  as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  should  be  notic- 


1  ii 


1    t  ' 


n 


I    i 


ed.  Should  it  be  by  a  solemn  public  denial,  in 
the  names  oi"  all  those  wlio  came  within  the  scope 
of  iNFr  Adams'  accusation,  including,  as  it  does,  all 
the  leaders  of  the  federal  party  from  the  year  1803 
io  1814?  Such  a  course  indeed  would  serve  in 
Massachusetts,  where  the  characters  of  the  par- 
ties are  known,  most  fully  to  countervail  the 
charges  of  Mr  vXdams  ;  but  this  impeachment  ot 
their  character  may  be  heard  in  distant  States,  and 
in  future  times.  A  convention  mioht  have  been 
called  of  all  who  had  been  members  '^f  the  federal 
party  in  the  legislature  during  those  eleven  years  ; 
and  a  rcsj)ectable  host  they  would  be,  in  numbers, 
intelligence,  education,  tnlcnts,  and  patriotism  ; 
yet  it  might  then  have  been  said — '  You  mean  to 
overpower  your  accuser  by  numbers ;  you  intend 
to  seize  this  occasion  to  revive  the  old  and  long 
extinct  federal  party  ;  your  purpose  is  to  oppress 
by  popular  clamour  a  falling  chief;  you  are  aveng- 
ing yourselves  for  his  ancient  defection  from  your 
party  ;  you  are  conscious  of  guilt,  but  you  endeav- 
our to  diminish  the  odium  of  it  by  increasing  the 
number  of  your  accomplices.'  These  reasons  had 
great  weight ;  and  the  course  adopted  after  de- 
liberation appeared  to  be  free  from  all  objection. 

The  undersigned,  comprising  so  many  of  the 
federal  party,  that  Mr  Adams  should  not  be  at 
liberty  to  treat  them  as  unworthy  of  attention, 
and  yet  so  few,  that  he  could  not  charge  them 
with  arraying  a  host  against  him,  addressed  to  him 
the  above  letter  of  November  26th.  They  feel 
no  fear  that  the  public  will  accuse  them  of  pre- 


1 


•l 


in 


sumption  in  taking  upon  themselves  the  task  of 
vindicating  the  reputation  of  the  federal  party. 
The  ,share  which  some  of  them  had  in  public 
atiairs  during  the  period  over  which  Mr  Adams 
has  extended  his  cliarges  and  insinuations,  and 
the  decided,  powerful,  and  well  merited  intlucnco 
enjoyed  by  their  illustrious  friends,  now  deceased, 
most  assuredly  gave  to  the  undersigned  a  right  to 
demand  the  grounds  of  the  accusation;  a  right 
which  Mr  Adams  himself  repeatedly  admits  might 
have  been  justly  and  properly  exercised  by  each 
of  them  severally.  Their  demand  was  founded 
on  the  common  principle,  recognized  alike  in  the 
code  of  honor  and  of  civil  jurisprudence,  ihat  no 
man  should  make  a  char<j;e  alU;cting  the  rights  or 
character  of  others,  without  giving  them  an  oppor- 
tunity of  knowing  the  grounds  on  which  it  was 
made,  and  of  disproving  it,  if  untrue.  To  this 
plain  and  simple  demand  the  undcrsigjied  received 
the  answer  contained  in  the  above  letter  of  Mr 
Adams,  dated  on  the  oOth  of  December. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Mr  Adams  altogether  refuses 
to  produc(>  any  evidence  in  support  of  his  allega- 
tions. The  former  part  of  his  letter  contains  his 
reasons  for  that  refusal ;  and  in  the  other  part,  he 
reuviats  tlm  original  charges  in  terms  even  more 
ollensive  than  before.  AVhen  addressing  to  him 
our  letter,  we  thought  we  might  reasonably  ex- 
pect from  his  sense  of  what  was  due  to  himself, 
as  well  as  to  us,  that  he  would  fully  disclose  all 
the  evidence  which  he  professed  to  consider  so 
satisfactory ;   and  vvc  felt  assured,   that   in  that 


I 


44 


I 


event  wc  should  be  able  fully  to  CAphiin  or  refute 
it,  or  to  fallow  that  it  did  not  aifect  any  distin- 
guished liieinhors  of  tho  ledernl  party.  And  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  should  refuse  to  disclose 
that  evideiice,  wo  trusted  that  the  jjublic  would 
presume,  what  wc  unhe!^i{a^ingly  believe,  that  it 
was  because  he  had  no  cndtn'C  that  would  bear 
to  be  suhmiHed  to  an  inq)nriial  and  inttUl'^en 
commtnilii/.  ]\Ir  Adams  has  ado})ted  the  latter 
course  ;  and  if  the  reasons  that  he  has  assigned 
for  it  should  appear  to  be  unsatisfactory,  our 
fellow-citizens,  wc  doubt  not,  will  join  us  in  draw- 
ing the  above  inference.  Vv'e  thcrcibrc  proceed 
to  an  examination  of  those  reasons. 

Mr  Adams  iirst  objects  to  our  making  a  joint 
application  to  him  ;  acknowk'dging  the  right  of 
each  one  alone  to  incpiirc  whether  he  was  includ- 
ed in  this  vague  and  sweeping  denunciation.  It 
is  not  easy  to  see  why  any  one  should  lose  this 
acknov.ledged  right,  by  uniting  with  others  in  the 
exercise  of  it;  nor  why  this  mere  change  of  form 
should  authorize  Mv  Adams  to  disregard  our  claim, 
jjut  tlK're  are  two  objections  to  the  course  which 
he  has  condescended  to  point  out,  as  the  only  one 
in  which  he  could  be  approached  on  this  occasion. 
Any  individual  who  should  have  applied  to  him  in 
that  mode  might  have  been  charged  with  arro- 
gance ;  and  to  each  of  tlicm  in  turn  he  mijiht 
have  tauntingly  replied,  '  that  the  aj)plicant  was 
in  no  danger  of  suliering  as  one  of  the  '"  leaders" 
in  Massachusetts,  and  had  no  occjision  to  exculpate 
himself  from  a  charge  conveyed  in  the  terms  used 


4 


45 


by  Mr  Adams.'  The  other  objection  is  still  more 
decisive.  After  allowing  to  this  denunciation  all 
tiie  weight  that  it  can  be  supposed  to  derive  from 
the  j)ersonal  or  ollicial  character  of  the  accuser, 
we  trust  there  are  lew  citizens  of  Massachusetts 
wiio  would  be  content  to  owe  their  political  repu- 
tation to  his  estimation  of  it,  and  condescend  to 
solicit  his  coiiiiicate  to  ac(jnit  them  ol'  the  sus- 
j>icion  of  treasonable  practices. 

Mr  Adams  next  objects,  that  we  make  our  ap- 
plication as  the  representatives  of  a  great  and 
powerful  party,  which,  at  the  time  referred  to, 
connnanded,  as  he  says,  a  devoted  majority  in 
the  legislature  of  the  Commonwealth  :  and  he 
denies  our  right  to  represent  that  ])arty.  We 
have  already  stated  the  objections  to  a  joint  aj)j)li- 
cation  by  all,  who  might  be  included  in  this  de- 
nunciation, and  lo  a  soj)arate  iiKpiiry  by  each 
individual  ;  and  some  of  the  reasons  which  we 
thought,  justified  the  course  which  we  have  j)ur- 
sued.  We  certainly  did  not  arrogate  to  ourselves 
the  tillc  of  '  leaders;'  and  Mr  Adams  may  enjov, 
undisturbed,  all  the  advantage  which  that  circum- 
stance can  give  him  in  ibis  controversy.  JJut  we 
freely  avowed  such  a  close  politi(-al  connexion 
w  ith  al'  wb.o  could  probably  have  been  included 
under  that  api)ellation,  as  to  render  us  responsible 
for  all  their  political  measures  that  were  known 
to  US  ;  and  we,  therefore,  nmst  have  been  either 
their  dupes,  or  the  associates  in  tlicir  guilt.  In 
either  case,  we  were  interested,  and,  as  we  appre- 
hend, entitled,  to  make  this  demand  of  Mr  Adams. 


fl 


46 


)i 


r 


■J 


As  to  the  siigfifcstion,  that  ho  spoke  only  of 
*  certain  lenders'  of  the  federal  jiarty,  and  not  ot 
the  |)arty  itself;  we  certaiidy  intended  to  deny  our 
knowledfjfe  and  helief  that  any  such  plot  had  heon 
contrived  hy  any  party  whatever  in  this  JState  ; 
and  it  is  explicitly  so  stated  in  our  letter.  'J'his 
languafre  would  include  any  numher,  whether 
lanrc  or  small,  who  niiijlit  he  supposed  to  have 
leagued  together,  for  the  pur|)osc  suggested  hy 
Mv  Adams.  There  seems,  therefore,  to  he  hut 
little  ground  for  this  technical  ohjection,  that  wc 
do  not  take  the  issue  tendered  hy  his  charge. 

IJut  we  wish  to  examine  a  little  further  this  dis- 
tinction which  Mr  Adams  relies  U|)on,  hetween  a 
political  party  and  its  leaders.  From  the  nature 
of  represenlf.tive  government,  it  results,  that,  in 
conducting  the  husiness  of  their  legislative  and 
popular  assemhlies,  some  individuals  will  he  found 
to  take  a  more  active  and  conspicuous  j)art  than 
the  rest,  and  will  he  regarded  as  essentially  inllu- 
encmg  puhlic  opinion,  whilst  they  are  gen(;rally 
themselves  merely  impelled  hy  its  force,  liutthis 
influence,  in  whatever  degree  it  may  exist,  is  tem- 
porary, and  is  possessed  hy  a  constant  succession 
of  dilferent  persons.  Those  who  possess  it  lor  the 
time  heing,  are  called  Itaders,  and,  in  the  course 
of  ten  years,  they  must  amount  to  a  very  nume- 
rous class.  Their  measures  and  political  ohjects 
must  necessarily  he  identilied  with  those  of  their 
whole  ])arty.  To  deny  this,  is  to  pronounce  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  upon  popular  government. 
For,  admitting  it  to  be  true,  that  the  people  may 


47 


1 


be  occasionally  surprised  and  misled  by  those 
>vho  al)iisc  their  confidence  into  measures  repug- 
nant to  tiieir  interests  and  duty,  still,  if  the  major- 
ity oltheni  can,  for  ten  years  together,  be  duped, 
and  led  hoodwinked  to  ilie  very  precipice  of  trea- 
son, by  their  perfidious  guides,  '  without  partici- 
pating in  their  secret  designs,  or  being  privy  to 
their  existence,'  they  show  themselves  unlit  for 
sell-government.  It  is  not  conceivable,  that  the 
federal  |)arty,  which,  at  that  time,  constituted  the 
great  majority  of  ^^assachusetts,  will  feel  them- 
selves indebted  to  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  lor  a  compliment  paid  to  their  loyalty,  at 
the  expense  of  their  character  for  intelligence  and 
independence. 

It  is  in  the  above  sense  oidy,  that  a  free  people 
can  recognize  any  individuals  as  leaders  ;  and  in 
this  sense,  every  man,  who  is  conscious  of  havino- 
enjoyed  inlluence  and  consideration  with  his  party, 
may  well  deem  himself  included  in  every  oppro- 
brious and  indiscriminate  impeachment  of  the 
motives  of  the  leaders  of  that  ])arty.  But  it  would 
be  arrogance  to  su|)i)ose  himself  alone  intended, 
when  the  terms  of  the  accusation  imply  a  con- 
federacy of  many.  And  while,  on  the  one  hand, 
it  would  betray  both  selfishness  and  egotism  to 
conline  his  demand  of  exculpation  to  himself;  so, 
on  the  other,  it  is  impossible  to  unite  in  one  ap- 
plication all  who  might  justly  be  considered  as  his 
associates.  It  follows  then  that  any  persons,  who, 
from  the  relations  they  sustained  to  their  party, 
may  apprehend   that  the  public  will  apply  to  them 


,M    ■!>«  ■■■ 


48 


f  I 


charges  of  tlii.s  vaffuc  (lcscrii)tion,  may  join  in  sucli 
nuMibcrs  as  tlicy  sIkUI  tliiiik  tit,  lo  doiunnd  an  cx- 
phmalion  ol"  charges,  Aviiiclj  will  jtrobahly  all'cct 
.sonic  of  thcnj,  and  may  allcct  ihcm  all.  'J'ho 
riglit,  npon  liic  immulahio  principles  of  jnsticc,  is 
commensurate  with  the  injury,  and  should  bo 
adapted  to  its  ch:iracter. 

Again,  who  can  doubt  that  the  public  reputation 
of  high  minded  men  who  liave  cmbarkinl  in  the 
same  cause  and  maintained  a  connnnnion  ol"  prin- 
ciples, is  a  conunon  property,  which  ;dl  w  ho  arc 
interested  are  bound  to  vindicate  as  occasion  mav 
re(|uire — tiie  present  for  the  absent — the  living  for 
the  dead — the  son  for  the  IV 'her. 

If  any  responsible  individual  at  A\'ashington 
should  declare  himself  to  be  in  possession  of  une- 
quivocal evidence,  that  the  leaders  of  certain 
States  in  our  coid'cderacv,  were  now  maturing  a 
plot  for  the  se))aration  of  the  States,  might  not  the 
members  of  Congress,  now  there,  from  the  States 
thus  accused,  in.-ist  uj)on  a  disclosure  of  evidence 
and  names  ?  Would  they  be  diverted  from  their 
purpose  by  an  evasion  of  the  (|uestion,  on  the 
ground,  that,  as  the  libeller  hisd  not  named  any 
individuals,  so  there  was  no  one  entitled  to  niako 
this  demand  r  or  would  they  be  satisfied  with  a 
misty  exculpation  of  themselves  ?  This  cannot  bo 
imagined.  They  would  contend  for  the  honor  of 
their  absent  friends,  of  their  party,  and  of  their 
States.  These  were  among  our  motives  for  making 
this  call.  We  feel  an  interest  in  all  these  particu- 
lars, and  especially  in  the  unsullied  good  name 


. 


^ 


s 


of  friomls  and  nssnciatrs,  wlio,  vonorahlc  for  eminent 
talents,  ^i|•t^l(^s  aiul  puhlic  seiviees,  have  i-one  down 
to  th(!  -rav<>  unconseioiis  of  any  inii.iitafiou  on  tlieir 
eliaraeters. 

Mr  Adams  admits  our  ri-lit  (o  make  seveiallv,  t!ie 
iiKHiiiies  ^v!.ieIl  have  lurn  made  Jointly  ;  tlioimli  in  a 
passage  eminent  for  its  e(|ni\oeation,'lie  e.xpivsses  a 
doiihl  wiieilicr  wc  can  come  w  itliin  llie  terms  of  his 
eliariics.     On  this  remarkahh;  i)assau(!  we  submit  one 
inon;  ohserv.uion.     As  Mv  Adams  deeiares  that  he  vrll 
hicw  Irom  unnivinmil  ecidnire  the  (;\istenee  of  such 
treasonahh;  desi-ns,  lie  nuist  have  known,  whetiier  the 
parties  who  adchessed  liim  were  eniiai;ed  in  those  de- 
signs. ^  \Vhy  then  resort  to  the  extraordinary  s(d)terfuii-e, 
tliat  //'tile  si-ners  of  that  letter  were  not  leaders,  tiien 
the  eharijcs  did  not  refe-r  to  them  ? 

There  is  then  no  rij,dit  on  the  part  of  INFr  Adams  to 
prescribe  to  the  uijured  parties,  (and  all  arc  injured  who 
may  be  comi)r(;hended  in  his  va^lle  e.\j)r(>.ssions)  the 
precise;  form  in  which  th(<y  should  make  their  demand. 
And  his  refusal  to  answer  that  which  we  have  made,  is 
like  that  of  one  who  iiavin-  fired  a  random  shot  amon-a 
crowd,  should  prot(>st  aijain^t  answerino-  to  the  com- 
plaint of  any  \\hom  Ik;  had  actually  wounded,  because 
they  could  not  i)rove  that  his  aim  w'as  directed  at  them. 
Another  reason  assigned  by  Mr  Adanis  for  his  refu- 
sal  to   name    the;    individuals  whom  he   intended    to 
nccuse,  is  that  it  mi-ht  exposi!  him  to  a  Ici-al  j.rosecu- 
tion.    M.«  ,  ertainly  had  not  nmch  to  apj)rehend  in  this 
respect  from  any  of  the  undersiuiied.     As  he  had  ori- 
ginally annomiced  that  he  had  no  le^ial  evidence  to 
prove  his  charge,  and  the  undersigned  had  nevertheless 
7 


w-. 


f" 


<  ' 


50 

cullcil  on  lilm  to  produce  such  as  lie  did  possess,  lie 
must  have  hcen  sulVuiintly  nssurcd  that  llu  ir  piirposcj 
was  not  to  resort  to  a  lourt  of  justice,  hut  to  the  tii- 
hiiual  of  pnhlie  opiiiiou  ;  and  that  they  had  virtually 
precluded  themselves  from  any  other  resort. 

INIr  Adams  su^^ests  another  ohjection  to  naming  the 
parties  accused,  on  account  of  the  jjrobahle  loss  of 
evidence,  and  the  forgetfulness  of  witnesses,  after  the 
la])se  of  twenty  years. 

He  undouhtedly  now  possesses  all  the  evidence  that 
he  had  in  October  last,  when  he  published  his  state- 
ment. If  he  then  made  this  grave  charge;  against  cer- 
tain of  his  fellow-citizens,  with  the  knowledge  that 
there  was  no  evidence;  by  which  it  could  be  substan- 
tiated, where  was  his  sense  of  justice  ?  If  he  made  it 
without  incjuiring,  and  without  regarding,  whether  he 
had  any  such  evidence  or  not,  inteuuling  if  called  upon 
to  shield  himself  from  responsibility  by  stiggesting  this 
loss  of  documents  and  proofs,  where  was  then  his  self- 
respect  ? 

But  did  it  never  occur  to  Mr  Adams,  that  the  parties 
accused  might  also  in  this  long  lapse  of  time  have  lost 
the  ])roofs  of  tlu}ir  innocence  ?  i/c;  has  hioivn  for 
twenty  years  past  that  he  had  made  this  secret  denunci- 
ation of  his  ancient  political  friends;  and  he  must 
have  anticipated  the  j)ossil)ility  that  it  might  at  some 
time  be  made;  public,  if  he  had  not  even  determined  in 
his  own  mind  to  ])ublish  it  himselt.  He  has  therefor'3 
had  ample  opportunity,  and  the  most  ))owerful  motives, 
to  preserve  all  the;  evidence  that  might  serve  to  Justily 
his  conduct  on  that  occasion.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
parties  accused,  and  especially  those  venerable  patriots 


1^:   I 


51 


I 


i 
I 


nlio  (luring  tliis  long  interval  liavo  descended  to  flic 
grave,  vnconscious  ofrruilt,  (did  ii>)ior(iitt  that  thrij  urie 
fvoi  s}is/i(cU'(l,  have  Jon  seen  no  ncci'ssili/^  (iiid  had  no 
motivr  nlu(tn'(:i\  to  /ircscicc  anij  mrmorials  oftlnir  in- 
nocence. W'v,  venture  to  make  this  appeal  to  liie  eo!\- 
seienee  of  Mr  Adams  himself. 

Mr  Adams  in  ouv  passage  ap|)eals  to  the  Teellngs  of 
the  midersiirned,  and  intimates  liis  snrprise  lliat  they 
slionld  hav(!  selected  \\u)  present  moment  for  :!K!king 
tiieir  demand.  \\v  did  them  l)nt  justice  in  siipposipg 
that  this  consideration  had  its  inlhience  on  their  minds. 
Tlieir  only  fear  was  that  tln^ir  ap|)eal  miiiht  he  consid- 
ered as  an  attack  on  an  emin(Mit  man,  \^  iiom  tlu.'  pnhlic 
favor  seemed  to  have  deserted.  iUit  tin^  imdersi<^iied 
had  no  choice.  Their  accuser  had  selected  his  own 
time  for  hriniiing  this  sid)ject  hefore  the  world  ;  and 
they  were  compelled  to  follow  him  w  ith  their  defence, 
or  consent  that  the  seal  should  he  set  on  their  own 
reputations,  and  on  those  of  their  deceased  friends  for- 
ever. We  said  with  truth,  that  it  was  not  our  design 
nor  wish  to  produce  an  eflect  on  any  political  jiarty  or 
(juestion.  \\c  were  not  unaware  that  oiu'  appeal  might 
lead  to  such  measures  as  would  seriously  a  fleet  either 
]Mr  Adams  or  ourselves  in  the  public  opinion.  lUit 
w  hilst  we  did  not  w  ish  for  any  such  result,  so  neither 
were  we  disposed  to  shrink  from  it. 

The  necessity  of  correcting  sotnc  mistakes  in  a  let- 
ter of  Mr  Jefferson,  which  had  been  lately  j)ul)lished 
is  assigsied  by  INfr  Adams  as  the  reason  for  his  j)ul)lica- 
tion.  If  that  circumstance  has  brought  him  before  the 
pid)lic  at  a  time,  or  in  a  manner,  injurious  to  his  feel- 
ings, or  unpropitious  to  his  political  views  and  expccta- 


62 


tions,  \vc.  are  not  responsible  for  the  consotjuen'e?. 
We  A\ oiiid  observe,  however,  that  it  would  have  been 
ii|)[);ircntlj  a  vimj  easy  task  to  correct  those  mistakes, 
wiihoiit  adding  this  unprovoked  denunciation  against 
his  native  State. 

Finally  ]Mr  Adams  declines  all  further  correspon- 
dence with  us  on  this  subject ;  and  even  intimates  an 
aj)prehension  that  he  may  have  already  cond(?scend('d 
too  I'ar,  and  waved  '  ev(Mi  the  pro})rieties  of  his  situa- 
tion,' in  giving  us  such  an  answer  as  he  has  given. 

He  very  much  misap[)reh('nds  the  ( haracter  of  our 
institutions,  and  the  principles  and  sj)irit  of  his  country- 
men, if  lie  imagines  that  any  official  rank,  however 
elevated,  will  authorise  a  man  to  publish  injurious 
charges  against  others,  and  then  to  refuse  all  repara- 
tion and  even  explanation,  lest  it  would  tend  to  impair 
his  dignity.  If  he  is  in  any  danger  of  sucii  a  result  in 
the  i)resent  instance,  he  should  have  foresecni  it  when 
about  to  publish  his  charges,  in  October  last.  If  '  the 
])roprieti('s  of  his  situation '  have  been  violated,  it  was 
by  that  original  })ublication,  and  not  by  too  great  con- 
descension in  answer  to  our  call  uj)on  him,  for  an  act 
of  simple  justice  towards  those  who  felt  themselves 
aggrieved. 

We  have  thus  examined  all  the  reasons  hy  m  Iiicli 
]Mr  Adams  attem})ts  to  justify  his  refusal  to  produce 
the  evidence  in  support  of  his  alleuations  ;  and  we 
again  apjx-al  with  confidence  to  our  fellow  citizens 
throughout  the  Unit(;d  States,  for  the  Justice  of  our 
conclusion,  that  no  such  evidence  exists. 


52 

The  preceding  observations  sufilcc,  we  trust,  to 
shew,  tliat  we  luive  been  reluctantly  forced  into  a  con- 
troversy, which  could  not  be  shunned,  u  ithout  the 
most  al)ject  dc-radation  ;  tiiat  it  was  competent  to  us 
to  interrogate  iMr  Adams,  in  the  mode  adoj)ted,  and 
tliat  he  declines  a  direct  answer  for  reasons  insui'licient, 
and  unsatisfactory  ;  thus  placing  Jiimself  in  the  predi- 
cament of  an  unjust  accuser. 

Here,  perliaps,  ^^e  niiglit  saf(>lj  rest  our  appeal,  on 
the  ground  that  it   is  impossible  strictly  to  prove  a 
negative.     JJut  though  we  are  in  the  dark  ourselves, 
wuh  respect  to  the  evidence  on  \\  hich  lu;  relics,  to  jus- 
tily  his  alh-ation  of  a  '  project,'  at  any  time,  to  dis- 
solve th(>  Union,  and  establish  a  northern  confederacy, 
(which  is  the  only  point  to  ^\  hich  our  in.piiries  were 
directed,)  it  Mill  he  easy  !,y  a  comp;uison  of  dates,  and 
cn-cumstances,  founded  on  his  own  admissions,  to  de- 
monstrat(!  (\\]v,a  we  kno^\  must  be  true)  that  no  such 
evidence  ap|)lies,  to  any  man  who  acted,  or  to  the  mea- 
sures adopted  in  iALassachusctts  at,  and  posterior  to  the 
time  of  the  emhargo.     The  ])r()jcct  iisclf,  so  far  as  it 
applies  to  those  men  and  meas.nes,  and  probably  alto- 
gcth(>r,  existed  only  in  tin;  distempered  fan:-y  of  Mr 
Adams. 

'  This  d<-sign  '  (h(>  says)  '  /tad  hcvn  formed  in  the 
'iCinteroJ'my3-\,  imniediatehj  ajhr,  and  as  a  conse- 
'(pience.of,  the  accpiisition  of  Louisiana.  Its  justify- 
'in-  causes,  to  those  who  entertained  it  were,  that  the 
'  annexation  of  Louisiana  to  the  ['nion  transcended  the 
'  constitutional  j)owers  of  the  government  of  the  United 
'  Stat(«s.  That  it  Ibrmed,  in  fact,  a  iieu-  confederacy 
Uo  whieii  the  states,  united  by  the  former  compact, 


54 


i    J; 


.      ' 


"  ! 


*  were  not  bound  to  adhere.     Tliat  It  was  oppressive 
'  to  the   iiUer(\sts,  and  destructive  to  tlie  inlluence,  of 
'tlie  norihcrn  section  of  the  confederacy,  whose  right 
'  and  duty  it  therefore  was,  to  secede  from  tlie  new 
'  body  politic,  and  to  constitute  one  of  their  own.  This 
'  i)lan  was  so  far  matured,  that  a  proposal  had  been 
'  made  to  an  individual,  to  permit  himself,  at  the  pro- 
'  per  time,  to  be  placed  at  the  head  of  the  military 
'  mov(nnents,  which,  it  was  ibreseen,  would  be  neces- 
'  sary  for  carrying  it  into  execution.'     The  interview 
Avitli  Mr  Jefferson  was  in  March  1808.     In  May  Mr 
Adams  ceased  to  be   a   senator.     In   tlu;  winter  of 
1808 — 0  he  made  his  communications  to  Mr  Giles, 
In  August  1800  he  embarked  for  Europe,  three  years 
before  the  war  ;  and  did  not  return  until  three  years 
after  the  peace;  ; — and   he  admits  the  impossibility  of 
his  having  given  to  INIr  Jefferson  information  of  nego- 
tiations between  our  citizens,  and  the  British,  during  the 
war,  or  having  relation  to  the  war — condescending  to 
declare,  that  he  Itad  no  knowledge  of  such  negotiations. 
Tlie  other  ini^tsures,  to  which  Mr  Adams  alludes, 
were  of  the  most  public  character ;  and  the  most  im- 
portan*^  of  them  better  known,  in  their  day,  to  other's, 
than    ;hey   could   be    to   him,    residinir  in   a    foreign 
country  ;    and    if   the    chain    by    a\  liich   these   mea- 
sures are  connected  with  th(>  supposed  plot  shall  ap- 
pear to   bo   wholly    imnginary,    these    measures   will 
remain   to    be    supported,    as   tluy  ought   to   be,   on 
their   own    merits.     The    letter    from    the    Governor 
of  jNova   Scotia,  as  will  presinuly  be  seen,  is  of  no 
possible  significance  in  any  view,   but  that   of  hav- 
ing constituted   the    only   information    (as   he   says) 


55 


I 


which  Mr  Adams  communicated  to  Mr  Jefferson  at  t!io 
time  of  his  fnst,  and  only  confidential  interview.     It 
was  written  in  the  summer  of  1807,  this  country  be- 
ing tlien  in  a  state  of  peace.     The  Governor's  corres- 
pondent is  to  tliis  hour  unlvnown  to  us.     He  was  not 
says  Mr  Adams,   a  '  leader '   of  the   Federal    party.' 
The  contents  of  the  letter  were  alto-ether  idle,  but  iho 
effect  supposed  by  Mr  Adams  to  be  contemplated  by 
the  writer,  could  be  produced  only  by  givin-  them  pub- 
licity.    It  was  conuiuinicaled  to  MrAdams  \^iihout 
any  injunction  of  secrecy.     He;  has  no  doubt  it  nas 
shewn  to  others.     Its  object  was,  he  supposes,  to  ac- 
credit a  calumny,  that  Mr  Jefferson,  ;uid  his  measures, 
were  subservient  to  France.     Tiiat  the  iiritish  -overu- 
ment  were  informed   of  a  plan,  determined  upon  bjr 
France,  to  effect  a  coihjuest  of  the  British   Provinces 
on    his  continent,  and  a  revolution  in  the  gov.>rnment 
o*  Jnited  States,  as  means  to  which,  tlu>y  wero 

fu.,t  iv)  produce  a  war  betW(H'n  the  United  States  and 
England.     A  letter  of  this  tenor  was  no  doubt  shewn 
to  Mr  Adams,  as  we  luust  b(>lieve  u])on  his  word.   The 
discovery  would  not  be  surprising,  that  IJritish,  as  well 
as  French  officers,  and  citizens,  in  a  time  of  peace  with 
this  country,  availed  themselves  of  manv  channels  for 
convi  yi„g  their  speculations  and  strata-ems,   to  other 
mnocent  ears  as  well  as  to  those  of  ]\Ir  Adams,  ^  itl,  a 
view  to  inlluenee  public  opinion.     But  the  subject  mat- 
ter of  the  letter  was  an  absurdity.      Who  did  not  know 
that  m  1807,  after  the  battle  of  Trafalgar,  the  crippled 
navy  of  France^  could  not  undertake!  to  transport  vvni 
a  single  regiment  across  the  British  Channel  r     And 
if  the  object  was  the  conquest  of  the  British  Provinces 


5(5 


!)y  th(^  United  States  alono,  how  could  a  revolution,  in 
their  government,  which  must  divide,  and  weaken  it, 
promote  that  end  ? 

Tlie  lolly  of  a  liritish  Governor  in  attempting  to 
give  currency  to  a  story  which  savours  so  strongly  of 
the  burlescjue,  can  be  ecjuallcd  only  l)y  the  credidity  of 
Mr  Adams,  in  believing  it  calculated  to  produce  effect; 
and  if  he  did  so  Ixdieve,  it  furnishes  a  criterion  by 
whic  1  to  estimate  the  correctness  and  im|)artiality  of 
Ifis  Judgment  concerning  the  weight  and  the  a|)plica- 
tion  of  the  other  evidence  which  he  stiil  uiihholds,  and 
from  which  he  has  (uidertakcn  ^\ith  e((ual  confidence;  to 
'  draw  his  inferences.'  After  the  adjustment  o'l  the 
diplomatic  preliminaries  with  Mr  (Jiles  and  ethers,  Mr 
Adams  communicated  notih.nc;  to  j\rr  Jefferson,  but 
the  substance  of  the  Nova  Scotia  Idler.  If  Mr  Adams 
had  then  known  and  belic^ved  in  thi^  '  j)r()ject,'  (the 
*  kev  '  to  all  the  future;  proceedings)  it  is  incredibh^  that 
it  should  not  ha\e  been  deemed  ^\orthv  of  disclosure — 
(It  thai  time,  anil  on  that  ocrnsion. 

In  this  connexion  ^V(!  ad\(Mt  for  a  moment  to  the 
temper  of  mind,  and  the  st;ite  of  feelings,  which  ])ro- 
bably  iiav(!  rise  to,  and  accompanied,  this  communica- 
tion of  ATr  Adams.  Circumstances  had  occinred  tend- 
ing- to  embitter  his  feelings,  and  to  waip  his  jiid'jnient. 

j\Ir  Adams,  Ju-;t  before  the  lime  of  his  interview 
W'ith  Mr  Jelferson,  had  voted  for  the  embargo,  lie  had 
been  reproached  for  having  done  this  on  the  avowed 
principle,  of  rot  in 'j\  ant!  not  (hlilicraling,  upon  the;  Kxe- 
cutiv(;  recommendation.  Uv.  had  been  engagc^d  with 
bis  colleague  in  a  controversy  on  this  subject.  His  con- 
duct, as  he  affirms,  and  as  was  the  fact,  had  been  cen- 


^ 


I 


siircd,  in  terms  of  severity,  in  the  public  press.     Tlic 
Legislature  of  Massachusetts  had  elected  another  per- 
son to  succeed  him  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
and  had  otherwise  expressed  such  a  strong  and  d(;cid(d 
disapprobation  of  the  measures  which  he  had  supported, 
that  he  felt  compelled  to  resign  his  seat  before  the  ev™ 
pnation  of  his  term.     These  might  be  felt  as  injuries, 
oven  by  men  of  placable  temper.     It  is  probabie  that 
his  ieelings  of  irritation  may  be  traced  back  to  the 
contest  between  Jefferson  and  the  elder  Adams.    It  is  no 
secret,  that  the  latter  had  cherished  deep  and  bitter  re- 
sentment against  llamillon,  and  certain  other 'leaders' 
of  the  federal  ])arty,  su])i)()scd  to  be  Hamilton's  friends. 
It  would  not  be  unnatural  that  the  son  should  j)artici- 
pate  in  these  feelings  of  the  father.     When  Mr  Adams 
visited  Mr  Jefferson,  and  afterwards  made  his  disclo- 
sures to  Mr  Giles  and  others,  having  lost  the  confi- 
dence of  his  own  party,  he  had  decided,  '  as  subse- 
quent events  doubtless  confirmed,'  to  throw  himself 
into  the  arms  of  his  father's   opponents.     But  there 
was  a  load  of  political  guilt,  i)ersonal  and  hereditarv. 
still  resting  upon  him,  in  tlu;  opinions  of  the  adverse 
l)arty.     i\o  ordinary  proof  of  his  unqualifi-d  abjuration 
ol  his  late  politics  would  bo  satisfactory ;— some  sacri- 
iice,  whicli  should  put  his  sincerity  to  the   test,  and 
place  an  impassable  barrier  betw(>en  him  and  his  i'or- 
mer  party,   was   indispensable.     And   what   sacrifice 
was  so  natural,  what  pledge  so  perfect,  as  this  private 
d('nunciation  !    Nor  does  the  ell^ct  S(>(;m  to  Ikut   been 
miscalculated  or   over-rated.     Mr   Jefferson   declares 
that  it  raised  Mr  Adams  in  his  mind.     Its  eventual 
consequences   were   highlv,  and  })ermanentlv  advan- 
8 


mt 


58 


Mf^ 


i   \    I  -l 


tngoous  to  Mr  Adams.  And  though  ho  assured  Mr 
Cilcs,  that  he  had  rcnouncod  his  i)arty,  without  personal 
views;  yet  this 'denial,' considering  that  he  had  the 
good  fortune  to  rec(!ivc  within  a  few  months,  the  em- 
bassy to  Russia,  'connected  with  other  circumstances,' 
which  ended  in  his  elevation  to  the  presidency,  does 
indeed,  according  to  his  own  principles  of  presumptive 
evidence,  r(;qnire  an  effort  of  '  the  charity  which  be- 
lieveth  all  things,'  to  gain  it  'credence.' 

To  these  public,  and  indis])utable  facts,  we  should 
not  now  revert,  had  Mr  Adams  given  us  the  names, 
and  evidence",  as  requested  ;  and  had  he  forborne  to 
reiterat(>  his  in,.nious  insinuations.  But  as  they  now 
rest  wholly  u])oii  the  sanction  of  his  opinion,  respecit- 
ing  evidence  which  he  alone  possesses,  wo  think  it  but 
reasonable  to  consider,  how  far  these  circumstanc(>s 
may  have  heated  h's  imagination,  or  disturl)ed  his 
eijuanimity,  and  given  to  tin*  evidence,  which  he  kee})s 
from  the  })ul)lic  eye,  an  unnatural,  and  false  com- 
plexion. 

AVe  ])rocecd  then  to  a  brief  examination  of  the  al- 
leged project  of  lo03-i — of  the  Northern  confederacy. 

In  tiie  lirst  place,  JFr  solcmnhj  disavow  all  knond- 
rilij^c  of  such  a  project,  and  aU  rcmonhranrr  of  the  nk/i- 
tion  of  it,  or  (i/'aiii/  plan  (oialogoits  to  it,  at  th(d  or  any 
Huhsctjucnt  jicriod.  S(!condly,  AViiile  it  is  ol)\iously 
impossible  for  lis  to  controvert  evidence  ol"  wlii(;li  \\c. 
are  ignorant,  we  are  well  assKved  it  nu:st  be  eepially 
inijiossible  to  bring  any  facts  which  can  he  considered 
evidence  to  bear  uj)on  the  designs  or  measures  of  those, 
who,  ;\\  the  lime  of  Mr   Adams'  interview  with  Mr 


59 


al- 


JofTerson,  and  .iftenvartls,   during  the  war,  took   an 
active  part  in  the  public  affairs  of  Massadiusctts. 

The  oflbrt  discernible  throiiglioiit  this  letter,  to  con- 
nect those  later  events,  which  were  of  a  jjublic  nature, 
and  of  which  the  natural  and  adequate  causes  were 
j)nblic,  with  the  mysterious  i)roject,  known  ojily  to 
hiniself,  of  an  earlier  origin  and  distinct  source,  is  in 
tlu!  last  dcgrcje  violent  and  disingenuous. 

Tlie    cession    of    Louisiana  to   the  United  States, 
when   iirst    promiilgcd,   was   a   theme    c'      ^nplaint 
and  dissatisfaction,  in  this  part  of  die  couniry.     This 
could  not  be  regard(>d    as    factious  or  unreasonable, 
when  it  is  admitted  by  Mr  Adams,  that  ]Mr  Jcjflerson 
and    liiujself  ent(  rtaincd   constitutional    scru])les    and 
obje(;tions   to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  cession. 
Ncjthiug,    however,    like  a   popular  excitement   grew 
out  of  the  me;jsure,  and  it  is  stated  by  JMr  Adams  that 
this  project  '  slinnbcird '  until  tlu^  period  of  the  embar- 
go in  Dec(unber  luU7.     Suppose  then  for  the  moment 
(what  wc  have  not  a  shadow  of  reason  for  bc;lie^  ing, 
and  do  not  believe)  (hat  upon  the  occasion  of  the  Lou- 
isiana Treaty,  '  certain   h-aders '  •       "need  by  consti- 
tutional objections,  (admitted  to  h;.       x'en  common  to 
Mv  Jefferson,  Air  Adams  and  themsehcs,)  had  con- 
ceived a  [)roject  of  separation,  and  of  a  Northern  Con- 
ic'deracy,  as  the  only  |)rol)able  coimteipoise  to  tlu;  man- 
ufactun^   of  new   States  in  the  South,  does  it  follow 
that  when  the  public  mind  became  reconciled  to  the 
cession,  and  the    benelicial   eonsetpiences    of  it   were 
realized,   (as   it  is  conceded  by  iVlr  Adams,   was  the 
case)  these  same;    '  It-aders,'  whoev(n'  they   might  be, 
would  still  cherish  the  embryo  project,  and  wait  for 


^ 


>  ;'  \i 


,  ' 


:4  ! 


GO 

other  contingcncirs,  to  cnablo  tlicni  to  cflc'ct  it  ?  On 
^vll!lt  autlioiity  can  Mr  Adams  assume  tliat  tlic  project 
merely  '  slumbered '  for  years,  il"  his  private  evidence 
api)lies  only  to  the  time  of  its  origin. 

The  opposition  to  the  measures  of  government  in 
I8O0  arose  from   causes,  ^vhieh  were  common  to  the 
people,  not  only  of  New-Kngland,  but  of  all  the  com- 
mercial states,  as  Avas  manifested  in  New-York,  IMii- 
ladelpliia,  and  elsewhere.     I>y   what  ])rocess  of  fair 
reasoning  then  can  that  opposition  be  referred  to,  or 
connected  with  a  plan,  which  is  said  to  have  originated 
in  luO'i-,  and  to  have  been  intendt.'d  to  embrace  merely 
a  northtrn  confederacy  ?  The  objection  to  the  Louisia- 
na treaty  was  founded  on  the  just  construction  of  the 
compact  between  sovereign  states.     It  was   beli(>ved 
in  New-England,  that    new   members   could  not  bo 
added  to  the  confederacy  beyond  the  territorial  limits 
of  the  contracting  parties  without  the  consent  of  those 
parties.     This  was  considered   as  a  fair  subject  of  re- 
monstrance, and  as  justifying  proposals  for  an  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution.     But  so  far  w  ere  the  Federal 
party  from  attempting  to  use  this  as  an  additional  in- 
centive to  the  passions  of  the  day,  that  in  a  report  made 
to  the  Legislature  of  1813  by  a  committee  of  which 
Mr  Adams's   '  excellent  friend '   Josiah   Qiiinci/  was 
chairman,  (Louisiana  having  at  this  time  been  admitted 
into  the  Union)  it  is  expressly  stated,  that  '■thcijluivc 
'  not  been  disposed  to  conned  this  irreat  constitutional 
^  (juestion  with  the  transient  calamities  o/the  daij,  from 
'  w  hich  it  is  in  their  opinion  very  apparently  distin- 
'  guished  both  in  its  cause  and  conseciuences.'     Tiiat 
in  their  view  of  this  great  constitutional  (jucstion,  they 


% 


h 


61 

have  confined  tl.emselvos  to  topics  and  arguments 
drawn  from  tlic  constitution,  '  witli  the  Iiope  of  Jin.itin- 
'  tlu,  iuither  progress  of  the  evil,  rath.r  than  ^vith  the 
'  expectation  of  immediate  relief  during  the  eontinu- 
'ance  ol  existing  inHiiences  in  the  national  administra- 
'  tion.'  This  report  was  accepted  ;  and  thus  the  '  pro- 
ject inst<;ad  of  heing  used  as  iuel  to  the  llame,  is 
dehberatelj  taken  out  of  it,  and  j)resented  to  the  people 
hy'lhe  leaders 'as  resting  on  distinct  considerations 
irom  the  '  transient  calamities,'  and  for  which  present 
redress  ought  neither  to  he  sought,  or  expected. 

To  the  enijurgo  imposed  in  December,  1807 
nearly  all  the  delegation  of  Massachusetts  was  op ' 
I)osed.     The  pretexts  for  imposing  it  were  deem- 
ed   by  her  citizens  a   mockery  of  her  sulferings. 
Owning  nearly  one  third  of  the  tonnago  in  tlie 
United  States,  she  felt  that  her  voice  oul.ht  to  be 
heard  in  what  related  to  its  security.     Depending 
principally  on  her  foreign  trade   and  fisheries  for 
snpport,  her  situation  appeared  desperate  under 
the  o])cration  of  this  law  in  its  terms  perpetual. 
It  was  a  bitter  aggravation  of  her  suflcrings  to  bo 
told,  that  its  object  was  to  preserve  these  interests. 
No  pcoj)le,   at  peace,  in  an  equal  space  of  time, 
ever  endured  severer  privations.     She  could  not 
consider  the  annihilation  of  her  trade  as  included 
in  the   i)ower   to  regulate   it.      To  her  lawyers, 
statesmen,  and  citizens  in  general,  it  appeared  a 
direct  violation  of  the  constitution.     It  was  uni- 
versally odious.     The  disaffection  was  not  confin- 
ed to  the  federal  party.     Mr  Adams,  it  is  said,  and 
not  contradicted,  announced  in  his  letters  to  the 


02 


members  of  Congress,  that  government  mn^^t  not 
rely  upon  its  own  friends.  Tlio  interval  from 
UU)?  to  If'.ri  was  filled  np  by  a  series  of  restric- 
tive measures  ubich  icept  alive  tbe  discontent  and 
irritation  of  tbe  popular  mind.  Tben  followed  tbc 
war,  under  circumstances  wbicb  aggravated  tbc 
public  distress.  In  its  progress,  J\liissacbnsctts 
was  dejirived  of  garrisons  for  In^r  ports — witb  a 
line  of  sea-coast  c<|ual  in  extent  to  one  tbird  of 
tbat  of  all  tbe  otbcr  maritime  States,  sbe  was  left 
during  tbc  wbolc  war  nearly  defenceless.  Her 
citizens  subject  to  incessant  alarm  ; — a  portion  of 
tbe  country  invaded,  and  taken  possession  of  as  a 
.conquered  territory.  Iler  own  militia  arrayed, 
lind  encamped  at  an  enormous  e\i)ensc  :  pay  and 
subsistence  supplied  from  ber  nearly  exbausted 
treasury,  and  reimbursement  refused,  ev(>n  to  tins 
day.  Now,  wbat  under  tbe  pressure  and  excite- 
ment of  tbesc  measures,  was  tbe  coiuluct  of  tbc 
federal  i)arty,  tbc  'devoted  majority,'  witli  tbn 
military  force  of  tbe  State  in  tbeir  bauds  ; — witb 
tbc  encouragement  to  be  derived  from  a  convic- 
tion tbat  tbc  Nortbern  States  were  iii  sympatby 
witb  tbeir  feelings,  and  tbat  government  could  not 
rely  on  its  own  friends  ?  J)id  tbey  resist  tbc  laws  ? 
Not  in  a  solitary  instance.  Did  tbey  tbreaten  a 
separation  of  tbe  States?  Did  tbey  array  tbeir 
forces  witb  a  sbow  of  sucb  disposition  ?  Did  tbc 
government  or  peo{)lc  of  JMassacbuscttsin  any  one 
instance  swerve  from  tbeir  allegiance  to  tbe  I'nion  ? 
Tbe  reverse  of  all  tbis  is  tbe  trutb.  Abandoned 
by  tbc  national  government,  because  sbe  declined, 


[ 


03 


I 


i 


for  reasons  which  her  higliost  trihunni  ndjndgf'd  to 
be  coiistitutioriiil,  to  surrender  lier  militia  into  the 
hands  of  a  military  prefect,  althouy;h  ihey  were 
always  equipped,  and  ready  and  faithful  under 
their  own  olliccrs,  she  nevertheless  clung  to  the 
Union  as  to  the  ark  of  lier  safety,  she  ordered 
her  well  trained  militia  into  the  field,  stationed 
them  at  the  points  of  danger,  defrayed  their  ex- 
penses from  her  own  treasury,  and  garrisoned  vv  ith 
them  the  national  forts.  All  her  taxes  and  excises 
were  paid  with  jjunctuality  and  j)rom[)tness,  an 
example  by  no  means  followed  by  some  of  the 
States,  in  which  the  cry  for  w  ar  had  been  loudest. 
These  facts  are  recited  for  no  other  pur|)Ose  but 
that  of  preparing  for  the  incpiiry,  what  becomes  of 
]\[r  Adams'  'k(>y,'  his  -project,'  and  his  'postu- 
lates:' riie  latter  were  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, to  use  his  language,  '  consumnmted.' 

Laws  unconstitutional  in  the  |)ublic  opini(jn  had 
been  enacted.  A  great  majority  of  an  exasperated 
people  were  in  a  state  of  the  highest  excitement. 
The  legi'^lature  (if  his  word  be  taken)  was  under 
*  the  management  of  the  leaders.'  The  judicial 
courls  were  on  their  side,  and  the  juries  were,  as  he 
pretends,  contaminated.  A  golden  op|)()rtunity  had 
arrived.  '  Now  was  the  winter  of  their  discontent 
made  jf'orious  summer.'  vMl  the  combustibles  for 
revolution  were  ready.  When,  behold  !  instead 
of  a,  dismemiiered  I  liion,  military  movements,  a 
northern  confederacy,  and  British  alliance,  accom- 
plished at  the  favorable  moment  of  almost  total 


^'- 


04 


ill 


proslrution  oftlin  credit  aii(i  power  of  tlic  luilionul 
rulijrsi,  a  .small  and  peaceful  deputation  of  j»ruvo 
citizens,  selected  from  the  ranks  of  civil  life,  and 
le<^Mslative  councils,  assembled  at  Hartford.  There, 
calm  and  collected,  like  the  Pilgrims,  from  whom 
they  descended,  and  not  unmindful  of  those  wiio 
liad  achi(!vcd  the  independence  of  their  country, 
they  deliberated  on  the  most  cllcctual  means  of 
preservini^  for  their  fellow-citizens  and  their  de- 
scendants the  civil  and  jjolitical  liberty  wliich  had 
been  won,  and  bequeathed  to  them. 

The  cliaracter  of  this  much  injured  assembly 
has  been  subjected  to  heavier  imputations,  nnder 
an  entire  deficiency  not  only  of  proof,  but  of  j)ro- 
babilitv,  than  ever  b(;fel  any  other  set  of  men,  dis- 
charging  merely  the  duties  of  a  committee  of  a 
legislative  body,  and  making  a  public  report  of 
their  doings  to  their  constituents.  'I'hese  imi)U- 
tations  have  never  assumed  a  prec'ise  form  :  but 
vague  opinions  have  prevailed  of  a  cond)ination  to 
separate  the  I  nion.  As  INlr  Adams  has  conde- 
scended, by  the  manner  in  wiiieli  he  speaks  of 
that  convention,  to  adopt  or  countenance  those 
imputations  on  its  j)roceedings,  we  may  be  excus- 
ed for  making  a  few  more  remarks  on  the  subject, 
.'dthough  this  is  not  a  suitable  occasion  to  go  into 
a  full  explanation  and  vindication  of  that  measure. 

The  subject  naturally   resolves  itself  into  four 
points,  or  questions  : 

First,  the  constitutional  right  of  a  State  to  ap- 
point delegates  to  such  a  convention  : 


\\ 


65 


Secondly,  the  propriety  and  exp»ai;cracy  of  ex- 
ercising that  right  at  that  time: 

Thirdly,  the  objects  intendtv.  no  be  attained  by 
it,  and  the  powers  given  i'or  tiiat  purpose  by  the 
State  to  the  delegates  ;  and 

Fourthly,  the  manner  in  which  the  delegates 
exercised  their  power. 

As  to  the  tirst  point,  it  will  not  be  doubted  that 
the  people  have  a  right  '  in  an  orderly  and  peacea- 
ble manner  to  assemble  to  consult  upon  the  com- 
mon good  ;'  and  to  request  of  their  rulers  'by  the 
way  of  addresses,  petitions,  or  remonstran'.es,  re- 
dress of  the  wrongs  done  them,  and  of  the  griev- 
ances they  sulfer.'  This  is  enumerated  in  the 
constitution  of  Massachusetts  among  our  l  'tural, 
essential,  and  unalienable  rights ;  and  it  is  recog- 
nized in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  who  then  shall  dare  to  set  limits  to  its  cxer 
cisc,  or  to  prescribe  to  us  the  manner  in  which  t 
shall  be  exerted  ?  We  have  already  spoken  of 
the  state  of  public  aftairs  and  the  measures  of  the 
general  government,  in  the  year  1814,  and  of  the 
degree  of  excitement,  amounting  nearly  to  des- 
peration, to  which  they  had  brought  the  minds  of 
the  people  in  this  and  the  adjoining  States. 
Their  sufferings  and  apprehensions  could  no  longer 
be  silently  endured,  and  numerous  meetings  of  the 
citizens  had  been  held  on  the  occasion,  ui  various 
parts  of  the  country.  It  was  then  thought  that 
the  measures  called  for  in  such  an  emergency 
would  bo  more  prudently  and  safely  matured  and 
promoted  by  the  government  of  the  State,  than  by 
9 


66 


unorganized  bodies  of  individuals,  strongly  excited 
by  what  they  considered  to  be  the  unjust  and  op- 
pressive measures  of  the  general  government.  If 
all  the  citizens  had  the  right,  jointly  and  severally, 
to  consult  for  the  common  good,  and  to  seek  for 
a  redress  of  their  grievances,  no  reason  can  be 
given  why  their  legislative  assembly,  which  repre- 
sents them  all,  may  not  exercise  the  same  right  in 
their  behalf.  We  nowhere  Hnd  any  constitutional 
prohibition  or  restraint  of  the  exorcise  of  this 
power  by  the  State  ;  and  if  not  prohibited  it  is 
reserved  to  the  State.  We  maintain  then  that 
the  people  had  an  uncjuestionablc  right,  in  this  as 
well  as  in  other  modes,  to  express  their  opinions 
of  the  measures  of  the  ijeneral  "overnuient,  und 
to  seek,  '  by  addresses,  petitions,  or  remonstrances,' 
to  obtain  a  redress  of  their  grievances  and  relief 
from  their  sulferings. 

If  there  was  no  constitutional  objection  to  this 
mode  of  proceeding,  it  will  be  readily  admitted 
that  it  was  in  all  respects  the  most  eligible.  In 
the  state  of  distress  and  danger  which  then  op- 
pressed all  hearts,  it  was  to  be  apprehended,  as 
before  suggested,  that  large  and  freciuent  assem- 
blies of  the  people  might  lead  to  measures  incon- 
sistent with  the  peace  and  order. of  the  commuMitv. 
If  an  aj)j)eal  was  to  be  made  to  the  governmo.it 
of  the  United  Slates,  it  was  likely  to  be  more 
elFectual,  if  proceeding  from  the  whole  State 
collectively,  than  if  from  insulated  assemblies  of 
citizens;  and  the  application  in  that  form  would 
tend  also  to  repi'css  the   public  excitement,  arid 


67 


prevent  any  sudden  and  unadvised  proceedings  of 
the  people,  by  iiolding  out  to  them  tiie  prospect 
of  relief  through  the  influence  of  their  State 
government.  This  latter  consideration  had  great 
weight  with  the  legislature;  and  it  is  believed 
to  have  been  the  only  motive  that  could  have 
induced  some  of  the  delegates  to  that  conven- 
tion to  quit  the  seclusion  to  which  they  had 
voluntarily  retired,  to  expose  themselves  anew  to 
all  the  fatigue  and  anxiety,  the  odium,  the  mis- 
representations, calumnies,  and  unjust  reproaches, 
which  so  frequently  accompany  and  follow  the 
best  exertions  for  the  public  good. 

If  each  one  of  the  States  had  the  right  thus  to 
seek  a  redross  of  grievances,  it  is  clear  that  two 
or  more  States  might  consult  together  for  the 
same  purpose  ;  and  the  only  mode  in  which  they 
could  consult  each  other  was  by  a  mutual  appoint- 
ment of  delegates  for  that  j)ur|)Ose. 

i3ut  this  is  not  the  only  ground,  nor  is  it  the 
strongest,  on  which  to  rest  the  justification  of  the 
l)rocee(lings  in  (juestion.  If  the  government  of 
the  linitcd  States  in  a  time  of  such  distress  and 
danger  should  be  iuvahlo,  or  should  neglect,  to 
allbrd  i)rotection  and  relief  to  the  j)eople,  the 
legislature  of  the  State  would  not  only  have  a 
right,  but  it  would  be  their  duty,  to  consult  to- 
gether, and,  if  j)racticable,  to  furnish  these  from 
their  own  resources.  This  would  be  in  aid  of 
the  general  government.  How  severely  the  peo- 
ple of  Massachusetts  exp>erienced  at  that  time 
the  want  of  this  ability  or  disposition,  in  the  gene- 


') 


11^; 


J,l 


!!i 


[f« 


68 


ral  government,  we  need  not  repeat.  If  the  legis- 
lature of  a  single  State  might  under  such  circum- 
stances endeavour  to  provide  for  its  defence, 
without  infringing  the  national  compact,  no  reason 
is  perceived,  why  they  might  not  appoint  a  com- 
mittee or  delegates,  to  confer  with  delegates  of 
neighbouring  States  who  were  exposed  to  like 
dangers  and  sufferings,  to  devise  and  suggest  to 
their  respective  legislatures  measures  by  which 
their  own  resources  might  be  employed  '  in  a 
manner  not  repugnant  to  their  obligations  as 
members  of  the  Union.'  A  part  of  New  England 
had  been  invaded,  and  was  then  held  by  the 
enemy,  without  an  effort  by  the  general  govern- 
ment to  regain  it ;  and  if  another  invasion,  which 
was  then  threatened  and  generally  expected,  had 
taken  place,  and  the  New  England  States  had 
been  still  deserted  by  the  government,  and  left  to 
rely  on  their  own  resources,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
best  mode  of  providing  for  their  common  defence 
would  have  been  by  a  simultaneous  and  combined 
operation  of  all  their  forces.  The  States  origin- 
ally possessed  this  right,  and  we  hold  t'.iat  it  has 
never  been  surrendered,  nor  taken  from  them  bv 
the  people. 

The  argument  on  this  point  might  be  easily 
extended  ;  but  we  may  confidently  rely  on  the  two 
grounds  above  mentioned,  to  wit,  the  right  of  the 
people,  through  their  State  legislatures  or  other- 
wise, to  petition  and  remonstrate  for  a  redress  of 
their  grievances;  and  the  right  of  the  States  in  a 
time  of  war  and  of  threatened  invasion  to  make 


It 


69 


i    ' 


the  necessary  provisions  for  their  own  defence. 
To  these  objects  was  confined  the  whole  authority 
conferred  by  our  legislature  on  the  delegates 
whom  they  appointed.  They  were  directed  to 
meet  and  confer  with  other  delegates,  and  to 
devise  and  suggest  measures  of  relief  for  the 
adoption  of  the  respective  States ;  but  not  to 
represent  or  act  for  their  constituents  by  agreeing 
to,  or  adopting  any  such  measures  themselves,  or 
in  behalf  of  the  States. 

But  whilst  we  strenuously  maintain  this  right  of 
the  people,  to  complain,  to  petition,  and  to  remon- 
strate in  the  strongest  terms  against  measures 
which  they  think  to  be  unconstitutional,  unjust, 
or  oppressive,  and  to  do  this  in  the  manner  which 
they  shall  deem  most  convenient  or  etlectual,  pro- 
vided it  be  in  '  an  orderly  and  peaceable  manner  ; ' 
we  readily  admit  that  a  wise  people  would  not 
hastily  resort  to  it,  especially  in  this  imposing- 
form,  on  every  occasion  of  partial  and  temporary 
discontent  or  suti'ering.  We  therefore  proceed 
to  consider. 

Secondly,  thc})ropricty  and  expediency  of  adopt- 
ing that  measure  in  the  autumn  of  lol4.  On  this 
point  it  is  e.nough  to  say,  tiiat  the  grievances  that 
were  suffered  and  the  dangers  that  were  apprehend- 
ed at  that  time,  and  the  strong  excitement  whichthey 
produced  among  all  the  people,  which  is  stated 
more  particularly  elsewhere  in  this  address,  ren- 
dered some  measures  for  their  relief  indispensably 
necessary.  If  the  legislature  had  not  undertaken 
their  cause,  it  appeared  to  be  certain,  as  we  have 


/9 


70 

already  suggested,  that  the  people  would  take  it 
into  their  own  hands  ;  and  there  was  reason  to 
fear  that  the  proceedings  in  that  case  might  be 
less  orderly  and  peaceful,  and  at  the  same  time, 
less  ellicacious. 

Thirdly.  We  have  already  stated  the  objects 
which  our  State  .<iovernment  had  in  view,  in  pro- 
posing the  convnntion  'at  Hartford,  and  the 
powers  conferre''  om  iheir  delegates.  If,  instead 
of  these  avowed  objects,  there  had  been  any  se- 
cret plot  for  a  dismemberment  of  the  Union,  in 
which  it  had  been  desired  to  en<jaii;e  the  neijih- 
bouring  States,  the  measures  for  that  purpose  we 
lUiiy  suppose  would  have  been  conducted  in  the  most 
})rivate  manner  possible.  On  tiie  contrary,  the 
resolution  of  our  legislature  for  appointing  their 
delegates, and  prescribing  their  power j  and  duties, 
was  openly  discussed  and  passed  in  the  usual 
manner ;  nnd  a  copy  of  it  was  inunediately  sent, 
by  direction  of  the  legislature,  to  the  governor  of 
every  State  in  the  I  nion. 

Fourthly.  The  only  retnaining  (juesticn  is, 
whether  the  delegates  e.\xeeded  or  abused  their 
jK/\vcrs.  As  to  this,  wc  have  only  to  refer  to  the 
report  of  their  proceedings,  and  to  their  journal, 
which  is  deposited  in  tlie  archives  of  this  State. 

That  report,  which  was  published  imn)ediutely 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  convention,  and  was 
soon  after  accepted  by  the  legislature,  holds  foith 
the  importance  of  the  Union  as  paramount  to  all 
other  considerations;  enforces  it  by  elaborate  rea- 
soning, and  refers  in  express  terms  to  JVashingtou's 


,    i 


V 

t 
'1 


I    - 


71 

farewell  addrcsfi,  as  its  text  book.  If,  then,  no 
power  to  do  wrong  icas given  by  the  legislature  to 
the  convention,  and  if  nothing  unconstitutional, 
disloyal,  or  tending  to  disunion,  \\i\>^  in  i'ixci  done 
(all  which  is  nianiiest  of  record),  there  remains  no 
prete.xi  for  impeaching  the  ujembers  of  the  con- 
vention by  imj)utiiig  to  ihcm  covert  and  nefarious 
designs,  cxc(\nt  the  uncharitable  one,  that  the 
characters  of  the  n>en  ju.-tify  the  belief,  that  they 
cherished  in  their  hearts  wishes,  aiul  inf(Milions, 
to  do,  nljatthcy  had  no  authority  to  execute,  and 
what  in  fact  they  did  not  attempt.  On  this  head, 
to  tho  people  of  Xew  England  who  were  ac(|uaint- 
ed  v,ith  the>e  characters,  no  explanation  is  neces- 
sary. For  the  information  of  others,  it  hchoves 
those  of  us  who  were  members  to  s|)eak  without 
reference  to  ourselves.  With  this  reserve  we 
may  all  be;  permitted  to  say,  without  fear  of  con- 
tradiction, that  they  fairiy  represented  whatever 
of  moral,  intellectual,  or  j>atr!otic  worth,  is  to  bo 
found  in  the  character  of  the  lS,o\v  England  com- 
munity ;  that  they  retained  all  the  personal  con- 
sideration and  conlidence,  which  are  enjoyed  by 
the  best  citi/,(>n<,  those  who  have  deceased,  to  the 
hour  of  their  <lealh,  and  (hose  who  survive,  to  the 
present  time,  i'or  the  satisfaction  of  those  ^\  ho 
look  to  self  love,  and  to  ]>rivate  interest,  as  sj)rings 
of  hu'man  action,  it  may  Im?  added,  that  among  the 
mass  of  citizens,  friends,  ;tnd  connexions,  whom 
they  represented,  were  many,  whose  fortunes  were 
principally  vested  in  th(>  public  funds,  to  whom 
tho  disunion  of  the  States  would  have  been  ruin. 


y 


72 


That  convention  may  be  said  to  have  originated 
with  the  people.  Measures  for  reUef  had  been 
demanded  from  immense  numbers,  in  counties 
and  towns,  in  all  parts  of  the  State,  long  before  it 
was  organized.  Its  main  and  avowed  object  was 
the  defence*  of  this  part  of  the  country  ufrainst  the 
common  enemy.  The  war  then  wore  its  m-^st. 
threatening  aspect.  New-England  was  destitute 
of  national  troops  ;  her  treasuries  exhausted  ;  her 
taxes  drawn  into  the  national  colfers. 

Tlie  proceedings,  and  report  of  the  convention, 
were  in  conformity  with  this  oI)ject.  Tiio  burden  of  that 
report  consisted  in  recominonding  an  application  to 
Coi!gi(>ss  to  permit  the  States  to  provide  for  their  own 
defenc"\  and  to  bo  indemnified  for  ilie  expense,  by  !\;- 
imburstUKMit,  ia  some  shape,  from  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, of;  at  least,  a  portion  of  their  own  money. 
This  coiivt  Mtion  adjonrned  early  in  January.  On  the 
27th  of  the  same  month,  an  act  of  Congress  was  pass- 
ed, which  gave  to  tlie  State  Governments,  the  very 
power  which  was  sought  by  Massachusetts  ;  viz — that 
of  *  raising,  organizing  and  officering  '  state  trooj)s,  '  to 
be  employed  in  the  State  raising  the  same,  or  in  an 
adjoining  State  '  and  providing  for  their  pay  and  sub- 
sist(>nce.  This  we  repeat,  was  the  most  important 
object  aimed  at  by  the  institution  of  the  convention, 
and  by  the  report  of  that  body.  Had  this  act  of  Con- 
gress })assed,  before  the  act  of  Massachusetts,  for 
orsanizinc;  the  convention,  that  convention  never  would 
have  existed.  Had  such  an  act  been  anticipated  by  the 
convention,  or  j)assed  before  its  adjournment,  that  as- 
sembly would  have  considered  its  commission  as  in  a 


I 


t- 


73 


groat  measuro,  superseded.  For  nlilioiiuli  it  ])re})nr(Kl 
and  reported  sundry  aniendnnMits  to  tlie  constitiition 
of  the  United  States,  to  Ix;  snhniitted  to  a!/  i\\v  Stiites, 
and  miglit  even,  if  isnowinii'  of  (his  art  of  Conijjress, 
have  persisted  in  doinn'  the  same  thin^- ;  yet,  as  this 
proposal  for  amendments  eonhl  liave  heen  aceomplish- 
cd  in  other  modes,  they  eonid  have  had  no  special 
motive  for  so  doing,  but  \\\vM  arose  from  tlieir  heing 
together;  and  from  llie  eonsideratioii  which  mi^ht  bo 
lioped  Jbr,  as  to  their  i)roj)ositioiis,  from  that  cir(;um- 
stance.  It  is  thus  matter  of  absohite  demonstra- 
tion, to  all  who  do  not  usnrj)  the  |!ri\ih'^e  of  ihe 
SEARfHKU  of  hcarl>i  that  the  dcsi'.'n  of  tlu'  Hartford 
convention  atd  its  doings  wert!  not  only  constitutional 
and  laudable,  but  sanctioned  by  an  act  of  CoiiL^rcss, 
passed  after  (he  ri'port  was  published,  not  indeed  Avith 
c\j)ress  reference  to  it,  but  with  its  princi])al  features, 
and  thus  admitting-  tlu;  reas()nai)lcMU'ss  of  its  general 
tenor,  and  j;rincipal  o])ject.  It  is  indeed  grievous  to 
perceive  Mr  Adams  condescending  to  intimate  that  the 
Convention  was  adjourned  to  iJoston,  and  in  a  strain 
of  rhetorical  pathos  coimecting  his  imaginary  plot,  tlu^i 
Tit  least  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  its  ag(>,  with  the 
'  catastroph(! '  whi'-h  awaited  th(>  ultimate  procec-dings 
of  the  conv(Mition.  That  as^-emhly  (idjournvd  v'ttlumi 
(Utij,  after  nuikitig  its  rrpnit.  It  was  ipso  facto  dis- 
solved, like  other  CominitttM^s.  One  of  its  resolutions 
did  indeed  pm-port  that  '  if  the  application  of  these 
States  to  the  governnKMit  of  the  United  States,  (rccom- 
mnidfd  in  (t  foregoing  rrsolui ion)  s/iouid  he  unsiiceess- 
ful,  and  peace  should  not  he  ronrluded,  and  the  difenee 
of  these  States  should  he  neglected  as  it  has  heen,  since 
10 


»*-"««i.«i 


■IMP 


1/ 


•J 


71 


the  coiiiiiiencLMiient  of  tlio  war,  it  will  be,  in  the 
opinion  of  this  Convention,  iwiu'diont  I'oi  the  Legishi- 
turu  of  llie  several  Slates,  to  appoint  (leleo;ates  to  ano- 
ther ConvciUion  to  niet^t  at  Ijoston  on  liie  third  Tuesday 
of  June  next,  with  sueii  pouersand  instruetions  as  the 
exigency  of  a  crisis,  so  momentous  may  require.'  On 
this  it  is  to  he  observed, 

First,  that  the  Convention  confem[)hited  in  the  fore- 
going resolution  never  was  a|)pointe(l,  and  never  could 
have  been,  according  to  the  terms  of  that  resolution  ; 
because,  as  is  shown  ahove,  the:  object  of  the  intended 
aj)plication  to  Congress  had  been  attained.  And,  8e- 
condlv,  if  the  continiieneies  mentioned  in  that  resolu- 
tion  had  occurred,  the  «]uestion  of  forming  such  a  new 
Convention,  and  llu^  appointment  of  the  delegates, 
must  have  gone  into  tiie  hands  of  new  assemhlies ; 
because  ail  the  Legislatures  of  the  New-Kngland 
states  would  have  been  dissolved,  and  there  would  have 
been  new  elections,  before  the  time  proposed  for  tlie  se- 
cond convention.  And,  lastly,  it  is  matter  of  [)ublic 
notoriety  that  the  report  of  this  convention  pro- 
duced the  cU'ect  of  assuaging  the  pid)lic  scnsibilitv, 
and  operated  to  repress  the  vague  and  ardent 
expectations  entertained  by  many  of  our  citizens, 
of  immetliutc  and  ciVcctual  relief,  from  the  evils 
of  their  condition. 

AVe  pass  over  the  elaborate  exposition  of  con- 
stitutional lav/  in  the  President's  letter  having  no 
call,  nor  any  inclination  at  this  time  to  controvert 
its  leading  principles.  Neither  do  wc  comment 
upon,  though  we  perceive  and  feel,  the  unjust, 
and  wc  must  be  excused  for  saying,  insidious  mode 


!l,:'^ 


75 


in  which  he  has  grouped  together  distant  and  dis- 
connected occurrences,  which  happened  in  his 
ahsence  from  the  country,  lor  the  j)urj)Ose  of  pro- 
ducing, hy  their  collocation,  a  glaring  and  sini.-ter 
effect  upon  the  federal  party.  They  were  all  of 
a  public  nature.  The  arguments  concerning  their 
merit  or  demerit  have  been  exhausted  ;  and  time, 
and  the  good  sense  of  an  intelligent  people,  will 
j)lace  them  ultimately  in  their  true  light,  even 
though  Mr  Adams  should  continue  to  throw  ob- 
stacles in  the  way  to  this  harmonious  reaction  of 
j)ublic  opini(jn. 

It  has  been  a  source  of  wonder  and  perplexity 
to  many  in  our  connnunity,  to  observe  the  immense 
did'erencc  in  the  standards  by  which  public  opinion 
has  been  led  to  measure  the  same  kind  of  proceed- 
ings, when  adoj)ted  in  dilVerent  States.  No  pre- 
tence is  urged  that  any  actual  resistance  to  the 
laws,  or  forcible  violation  of  the  constitutional 
compact,  lias  ever  haj)pened  in  IMassachusetts. 
Constitutional  questions  have  arisen  here  as  well 
as  in  other  States.  It  is  surprising  and  consolatory 
that  the  number  has  not  been  greater,  and  that  the 
termination  of  them  has  not  been  less  amicable. 
To  the  discussion  of  some  of  them  great  excite- 
ment was  unavoidably  incident ;  but  in  comparing 
cases  with  causes  and  elfects,  the  impartiid  observ- 
er will  perceive  nothing  to  authorize  any  dispar- 
agement oniiis  Staff,  to  the  advantage  of  the  pre- 
tensions of  other  members  of  the  con  federacv. 

On  this  subject  we  disclaim  the  purpose  of  in- 
stituting invidious  comparisons  ;    but  every  one 


1* 

is 


) 


I  n 


7() 

knows  that  Miissaclmsctts  has  not  been  alone  in 
coniphiiiits  and  rcMuonstranccte  against  tlic  acts  of 
the  n;:tional  government.  iXotliing  can  be  Ibund 
on  the  records  of  her  legi.dativc  proceedings,  sur- 
passing tlio  lone  of  resohilions  adopted  in  other 
States  in  reprobation  of  tlie  ahen  and  sedition  laws. 
In  one  Stale  oppo:iition  to  the  execution  of  a  treaty, 
in  others  to  the  laws  instituting  the  bank,  has  sound- 
ed the  note  of  preparation  lor  resistance  in  more 
impassioned  strains  liian  v.ere  ever  adopted  here. 
And  at  this  moment,  claims  of  Slate  rights,  and  pro- 
tests against  the  measures  of  tiie  national  ijovern- 
ment,  in  terms,  for  which  no  j)iirallel  can  be  found  in 
JMassachusetts,  arc  ushered  into  the  halls  of  Con- 
gress, under  the  most  solemn  and  imj)Osing  forms 
of  State  autliority.  It  is  not  our  part  to  censure 
or  to  aj)provc  thest;  proceedings.  Massachusetts 
has  (lone  nothing  at  any  lime,  in  opposition  to  the 
national  government,  and  she  has  said  nothing  in 
derogation  of  its  powers,  that  is  not  fully  justihcd 
by  the  constitution  ;  and  not  so  much  as  other 
States  have  said,  with  more  decided  cmpliasis ; 
and,  as  it  is  believed,  without  the  stimulus  of  the 
same  actual  grievances.  We  are  no  longer  at  a 
loss  to  account  for  the  prevalence  of  these  l)i"eju- 
dices  against  this  })art  of  the  I'liion,  since  they 
can  now  be  traced,  not  only  to  cahnnnics  openly 
])roi)agated  in  the  season  of  bitter  contention  by 
irritated  opj)onents,  but  to  the  secret  and  hitherto 
unknown  aspersions  of  Mr  Adams. 

Mr  Jelferson,  then  at  the  head  of  government, 
declares  that  the  cH'ect  of  iMr  Adams'  communica- 


• 


77 

tion  to  him  at  their  interview  in  March,  in08,  was 
such  on  his  mind,  as  to  mi  luce  a  cliango  in  the 
system  of  his  administration,     fiikc   impressions 
were  douhtlcss  made  on  l\Ir  Giles  and  others,  wlio 
then  gave  direction  to  the  public  sentiment.     Not- 
withstanding these  disadvantages,   if  Mr  Adams 
had  not  seen  lit  to  proclaim  to  the  world  liis  for- 
mer  secret   denunciation,   there    had    still   been 
room  to   hope  that  those  impressions  would   be 
speedily  obliterated  ;   tliat  odious  distinctions  be- 
tween  the   people  of  dift'erent    tStates  would  bo 
abolished  ;  and  that  all  would  come  to  feel  a  com- 
mon interest  in  referring  symptoms  of  excitement 
against  the  procedure  of  the  national  government, 
which   have   been  manifested  successively  on  so 
many  occasions,   and   in  so  many  States,   to  the 
feelings,  which,  in   free  governments,  are  always 
roused   by  like  causes,  and  are  characteristic,  not 
of  a  factious  but  a  generous  sensibility  to  real  or 
supposed  nsuri)ation.     But  ]Mr  Adams  returns  to 
the  charge  with  new  animation  ;  and  by  his  politi- 
cal legacy  to  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  under- 
takes to  entail  upon  them  lasting  dishonor.     He 
reallirms  his  convictions  of  the  reality  of  the  old 
project,  persists  in  connecting  it  with  later  events, 
ami  dooms  himself  to  the  vocation  of  [)roving  that 
the   federal  party  were  cither  traitors  or   dupes. 
Thus  he  has  again  (but  not  like  a  healing  angel) 
troubled    the   pool,   and   we   know  not  whi  u  the 
turbid  waters  will  subside. 

It  must  be  apparent,  that  we  have  not  sought, 
but  have  been  driven  into  this  unexpected  and 


■MOM 


1. 


78 


unwolronic  controvorsy.  On  tlio  rc'toration  uf 
poaco  ill  l<)l.'),  tlio  I'tMlcrJil  j»!irty  Iclt  like  moi,, 
wlio,  as  by  a,  niiiach,',  liiid  tliomsiclvcs  safe  from 
tlio  most  appalliiii;  jHiil.  'J'lioir  joy  was  too  cn- 
j^rossinjj;  to  permit  u  vindictive  reciiironce  to  the 
causes  of  that  peril.  Every  emotion  of  animosity 
was  permitted  to  subside.  From  that  time  until 
the  a])pearance  of  Afr  Adams'  publication,  they 
liad  cordially  joined  in  tlie  j,f(Mieral  irratulation  on 
tlie  prosperity  of  their  country,  and  the  security  of 
its  institutions.  'They  were  conscious  of  no  devia- 
tion from  patriotic  duty,  in  (Uti/  mrdsnrc  wherein 
they  had  acted,  or  which  had  passed  with  their 
approbation.  'I'hey  were  not  only  contented,  but 
sirateful,  in  the  j>rospect  of  the  duration  of  civil 
liberty,  according  to  the  forms  which  the  j)eo|)Ie 
had  deliberately  sanctiomMJ.  These  objects  being 
secured,  they  cheerfully  acquiesced  in  the  admin- 
istration of  government,  by  whomsoever  the  peo- 
ple might  call  to  [)l;icos  of  trust,  and  of  honor. 

With  such  s(MitiuH'Uts  and  feelings,  the  j)iiblic;  caiuiot 
but  i)aitici|)ate  in  tlu^  astonishment  of  the  inideisiiiiied, 
at  the  time,  the  manner,  and  the  nature,  of  Mr  Adams's 
])ublication.  We  make  no  attempt  to  assign  motives 
to  him,  nor  to  comment  on  such  as  may  be  ima- 
gincHl. 

The  causes  of  past  controversies,  passing,  as  they 
were,  to  oblivion  among  existing  generations,  and 
arranging  thenjselves,  as  they  must  do,  for  the  impartial 
scrutiny  of  future  historians,  tin;  revival  of  them  can 
be  no  less  distastciful  to  the  public,  than  j)ainful  to  us. 
Yet,   it  could  not  be  expected,  that  while  Mr  Adams, 


iic 

iity 


79 

from  Ills  liiiih  station,  sends  forth  tlin  unfoniidcd  siiiicos- 
tioiisofliis  iniiiuination,  or  his  jealousy,  as  materials 
for  present  opinion,  and  fntmc  history,  we  bhonld,  hy 
silcnrr^  ^ivi;  conntenanee  to  his  eharj^cs  ;  nor  that  wo 
shoidd  neglect  to  vindieafe  the  reputation  of  omselves, 
onr  assoeiates,  and  our  Fathers. 


II.  (i.  OTIS, 

isi{Ai:i.  'nionxDiKi:, 

T.  II.  I'KKKI.NS, 

vv.M.  i»Ki:st'()'i''r, 

DAMKL  S\|{(;i:.\'l', 

.101  I.N  lc)\\i:m., 


W.M.  SI  LI.IV.W, 
CIIAIILKS  .lACKSOX, 

WAKiiKN  nrr'i'oN, 

HlvNJ.  IMl  K.MAV, 

I n:\uv  cAiu)'!', 

i^iiii  ul'  llic  lulu  G'oiirgo  ('allot. 

(!.(".  TAUSONS, 

fun  111'  'riii'iiiiliiliit  I'ursoiia,  Edi|.  doccaiol. 


Boston,  JiLiuanj  28,  \\\2i). 


I  subserihed  liio  foreiioinj;  letter,  and  not  tin;  ixejjjv, 
for  the  toliouinu'  reasons  :  Mr  Adams  in  iiis  statement 
jjuhllshed  in  the  National  lnleHiji,cneer,  spoke  of  tiie 
leaders  of  the  Federal  ()arty,  in  the  ijiar  IDUo  and  for 
si'iwnil  i/cor.i  jiiccloiis,  as  enii:aii('d  in  a  systematic  op- 
position to  the  "ieneral  ^overmnent,  ha\  in;;  for  its  object 
the  dissolution  of  the  I'nion,  and  the  esial)lishmein.  of 
a  "separate  confederacy  i>y  tin;  aid  of  a  foreiiiu  power. 
As  a  ])r()()f  of  that  disposition,  particular  allusion  is 
made  to  the  opposition  to  the  embargo  in  the  Courts 
of  Justice;  in  Massachusetts.  This  pointed  the  charge 
directly  at  mv  l;i«c  fathc  whose  efforts  in  that  cause 


..;' 


'A 


.*!  «  ifMIWflii.i 


i' 


80 

are  probably  rcmemben'd  ;  and  ^vas  the  reason  of  my 
Joining  in  the  application  to  Mr  Adams  to  know  on 
what  such  a  charge  was  founded.  If  this  construction 
of  tiic  statement  needs  confirmation,  it  is  to  be  found 
in  one  of  the  letters  lately  published  in  Salem  as  Mr 
Adams's. 

Mr  Adams  in  his  answer  has  extended  his  accusa- 
tion to  a  subse(]uent  period.  In  tlu;  ev(>nts  of  that  time 
I  have  not  the  same  interest  as  in  those  preceding  it ; 
and  as  the  Reply  was  necessarily  co-extensive  with  tlio 
answer,  that  reason  prevented  me  from  joining  in  it. 
I  take  this  oi)p()rtunity,  however,  to  say  for  myself, 
that  I  fnid  in  IMr  Adams's  answer  no  justification  of 
his  chargers  ;  and,  in  reply  to  that  jKortion  of  his  lett(>r 
particularly  addressed  to  me,  that  I  h.ave  seen  no  ])roof, 
and  shall  not  readily  believe,  that  any  iiortion  ol  my 
father's  political  covmsc,  is  to  bo  attributed  to  the  inllu- 
cnce  there  su^iiested. 

fra?;ki.l\  i)i:xti:u. 

Bu.stun,  Januarij  2Q,  1821). 


